Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 20:05:24 11/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2001 at 22:51:12, pavel wrote: >On November 13, 2001 at 22:45:34, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On November 13, 2001 at 22:40:34, pavel wrote: >> >>>>I rather suspect that nothing is going to compete with ChessMaster here. Even >>>>dedicated mate solvers will have a time beating that speed. TheKing engine >>>>seems to have an incredible knack to exploit the opponent when they are over the >>>>barrel. >>> >>> >>>both little goliath and junior 6 finds it faster see my post. >>>It was on pentium III 1gz >> >>Less than 46 seconds for a mate in 10 [that's what I got on my machine]? >> >>It looked to me like neither beat it -- not even close. >>Goliath Light saw a mate in 13 after 3 minutes, still. >>Junior only 24 seconds, but a mate in 13. On my machine, ChessMaster 8000 took >>all of 12 seconds to find a mate in 13. >>Shredder found a mate in 10 in 52 seconds (and I suspect that the hardware was >>faster than my 950 MHz Athlon) >> >>So ChessMaster looks like a clear champion to me. > >I am kinda confused if its mate in 13 than whats with the mate in 10 then? There are "better mates" if you can call them that. All the programs seem to spot the mate in 13 eventually. Some find the mate in 12 moves, and some the mate in 11 moves. But there is also a checkmate in only ten moves: Rxf8+ Nxf8 Qf1 Bf6 Nf7+ Kh7 e5+ Qe4 Bxe4+ Bf5 Bxf5+ g6 Bxg6+ Nxg6 Ng5+ Bxg5 Qf7+ Kh8 Qg8# It's often harder to find a better mate. Sometimes, the longer mates have more forced move sequences (like singular replies to check). To find the shorter mate takes a lot more work. Steven J. Brann found a mate in 10 using ChessMaster in a (ridiculous) 16 seconds. Ouch. My head hurts.
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.