Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 09:05:20 10/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2001 at 02:06:17, Koundinya Veluri wrote: >I ran them for 1 hour maximum, 5 million nodes minimum. Results are here: >http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~veluri/WCSAC%20cleaned.txt > >Only one wasn't solved: >k1q1bbrr/1p3pp1/p7/5n1n/PP2N2p/1NP5/1BB1Q1PP/2R2R1K b - - bm Bb5; id >"WCSAC.0582"; > >This one takes a long time even with some help moving forward and backward. >Plus, if you see the output for this position you'll see that the branching >factor _sucks_ in my program once it reaches 11 ply. I gotta do something about >that... > >Koundinya Thanks, I have the times to solution of Crafty, YACE and my program (on a K6-II 400 mhz, what's your hardware?). I will post the comparison of all of them. Rebel times are just amazing (excet the mate in 11!). Unfortunately Vincent do not care to post DIEP's which seemed to be very good too. For some reason, Crafy does poorly in this set of positions and Deep Fritz had problems with one particular position. Very funny. Somehow, I think that nullmove can create some problems and if you do more things on the qsearch (checks) it will show here, but it is just a _wild_ guess. DIEP apparently is solving many positions in less plies than other programs and Vincent claim that he does several things on the qsearch. Maybe the extensions are important. Regards, Miguel
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.