Author: leonid
Date: 15:22:57 08/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 2001 at 07:28:23, Uri Blass wrote:
>On August 17, 2001 at 07:01:23, leonid wrote:
>
>>On August 16, 2001 at 22:23:32, Heiner Marxen wrote:
>>
>>>On August 16, 2001 at 21:21:22, leonid wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 16, 2001 at 19:49:56, Heiner Marxen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 16, 2001 at 19:00:56, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On August 16, 2001 at 18:58:17, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On August 16, 2001 at 16:47:03, Heiner Marxen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On August 16, 2001 at 12:03:51, leonid wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hi!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This position is intended to be solvable by every program, after only minor
>>>>>>>>>resistance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>1rrbbq2/3k4/1qqpnq2/3B4/2NPR3/1QB1KQ2/QN3PQQ/Q5QR w - -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Please indicate your result.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>Leonid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hello Leonid!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You should try to find titles for your beautiful creations!
>>>>>>>>For this one I suggest "The King", for obvious reasons :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've not yet worked on this new creation of yours, since my K7/600 after
>>>>>>>>60 hours is still busy crunching on your corrected "US".
>>>>>>>>http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?183489
>>>>>[D]B2B1qr1/N2Qb2q/Q2Rq3/Q2Q1q2/Q2Q2q1/Q2Q3n/R2Qq2k/1KN2rq1 w - -
>>>>>>>>I know, you warned us :-) but I thought that would not apply to Chest.
>>>>>>>>That there is no mate in 8 needed only 40 minutes with an apparent EBF
>>>>>>>>below 10, so I expected less than 10 hours. But this one is a hard nut
>>>>>>>>for Chest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I understand that chest is working on finding if there is a mate in 9
>>>>>>>Chessmaster6000(ss=10) can see mate in 12 in 7:20 at depth 1/6(PIII850)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It can see even mate in 11 in 16:58 at depth 1/7
>>>>>>The move is d2-e2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>
>>>>>Hello Uri!
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the info!
>>>>>I expect Chest to find a mate in 9, here, but I have to wait until it is
>>>>>completely done (64 hours and still busy...).
>>>>>Ah, yes, d2-e2 is one of those moves, where the tree explodes for Chest.
>>>>>
>>>>>We'll see... I will report, of course... until then...
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Heiner
>>>>
>>>>Heiner, from what move exactly branching went up? On mine is started growing
>>>>just from 6. It could be that I just stopped where it must explode.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to glace brute force:
>>>>
>>>>Moves Time Branching factor NPS
>>>>
>>>>4 1.26sec 77k
>>>> 6.65
>>>>5 8.4 sec 120k
>>>> 6.63
>>>>6 55.77 124k
>>>> 8.78
>>>>7 8min 3sec 116k
>>>> 8.17
>>>>8 1 hour 5 min 48 sec
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Leonid.
>>>
>>>Here is my data:
>>>
>>>depth time EBF[T] EBF[N]
>>># 1 0.00s 0kN 0.87 1- 0
>>># 2 0.00s 0kN 1.00 1- 0
>>># 3 0.03s 2kN [ 19.55] 0.96 94- 0
>>># 4 0.49s [ 16.33] 26kN [ 12.46] 1.02 1721- 0
>>># 5 5.79s [ 11.82] 272kN [ 10.44] 1.14 24491- 0
>>># 6 39.83s [ 6.88] 1741kN [ 6.40] 1.40 171448- 0
>>># 7 254.16s [ 6.38] 11262kN [ 6.47] 1.70 1091347- 1
>>># 8 2375.96s [ 9.35] 109788kN [ 9.75] 1.93 9380661- 1310495
>>>
>>>First, it went down, nicely, but then it started climbing somewhat,
>>>and the next one is at least 88 ! Uuh.
>>>Its still running, over 66 hours already.
>>
>>
>>This is the next position that indicate that my specialized plys are still not
>>that efficent. When your solve 4 moves in only one half of one second, mine went
>>beyond one. My NPS is double of your. This is the next indication that efficency
>>is below of what it should be.
>>
>>My expectation is that hash do very little for specialized plys since they are
>>already very optimized. Something to verify later.
>>
>>For me is there no chances to look 9 moves for more that 10 hours but still I am
>>curious how much internal structure of given position influence its branching
>>factor. Will try to put this position later for 10 hours run.
>>
>>Maybe it will be interesting for you to know exactly time for other and good
>>programs for this position. First for certain program where I put hash to zero.
>>
>>3 moves took 4 seconds.
>>4 moves took 7 min and 31 sec.
>>
>>Second was specialized engin for solving mate. It not permit to disconnect its
>>hash completely. Could see only for 4 moves. It took 1 min and 18 sec. Five
>>moves time I could not see since mate engin exploded.
>
>I believe that you used the wrong engines.
>Even the mate solver of an old program like Genius2 is faster in seeing no mate
>in 4.
Disgracefully, I don't have Genius 2 or 3 but Genius 4. I am a little bit
suspicious about Genius 4 since I remember that it was wrong on few (nothing
exotic) mate positions. I do remember that Genius 2 and 3 were without any
problem in solving mate.
On Genius 4 and with 128k hash.
4 moves - 31 sec.
branching factor 60.
5 moves - 31 min and 1 sec.
Result is not that bad, it is sure. Hash "off" its 4 moves will, probably, take
1 or 2 minutes. Not that far from result that program without hash presented.
Leonid.
>Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.