Author: Slater Wold
Date: 19:18:36 10/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2001 at 22:12:02, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 09, 2001 at 21:26:54, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On October 09, 2001 at 20:09:51, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 09, 2001 at 19:52:47, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>>None of these searches found a mate in ten. So far, chest is the only tool that >>>>>found it (IIRC). >>>> >>>> >>>>In how long?? >>> >>>Chest used 15961 seconds on p200 to find the mate in 10 and it should be >>>translated to less than 1 hour on fast hardware. >> >>That's _very_ respectable. >> >>> >>>Unfortunately there are programs that have no chance to find it in an hour >>>because they stop to search when they find a mate. >> >>Yes. I cannot use ANY Chessbase engine, they stop when they find the first >>mate. >> >>> >>>The smartest program in finding mates based on my experience is chessmaster >>>but I am not sure if it can find the mate in less than an hour because I believe >>>that this is not the kind of the mate that it likes(it likes more mates when >>>there are more pieces in the board). >> >>I agree. But I don't have ChessMaster installed. >> >>> >>>I did not test chessmaster so I may be wrong. >> >>I think it could find mate. In how long might be another story. > >You are right > >Here are chessmaster6000(ss=10) results on pIII850 > >depth 6/11 2:51 mate in 14 >depth 7/12 5:28 mate in 12 >depth 8/13 9:29 mate in 11 >depth 9/14 22:51 mate in 10 > >Uri An interesting truth: Of the 2 chess programs that can find the mate in 10; 1 cannot play chess and the other isn't in the top 20 of the SSDF rating list. Weird. 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.