Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:01:04 10/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2001 at 19:53:02, K. Burcham wrote: >what is your point dan. to a gamer slates post is important. >his program found a mate in 1 second. did i read this right? Apparently, Little Goliath found a mate in 33 in one second, which is astonishly good, but it is not an answer to the question Slate followed up. >with some of these programs, if slate system was in a game, once the program >moves from this position it will see the shorter mate if it is there. >the point is, slates badass system sees a mate in one second. I think that several programs find a mate in a few seconds. Basically, unless you do something stupid here, you are going to win with a quick checkmate. All roads lead to rome, except the truly obnoxiously stupid ones. >i also ran this through gambit tiger, shredder5, comet, SOS, and deep fritz. > i only posted SOS eval below. some of the others took lots of time. > one of the top programs takes 7 minutes on fast hardware in this position. With any move chosen by a top program within two seconds, there will surely be a checkmate in very short order. The position is completely won. Here is the original question: "How much time does your program need to see mate in 10 with the full 5 piece tablebases and without tablebases?" I was pointing out that Slate did not succeed in answering it. He answered a different (and interesting) question: "What happens when you analyze this chess position with your programs?"
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.