Author: Slater Wold
Date: 17:03:00 10/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2001 at 20:01:04, Dann Corbit wrote: >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?" I'll answer the original question too. I was just kinda trying to give a feel. :) Slate
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.