Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 02:02:56 11/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2001 at 04:39:24, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 14, 2001 at 04:16:57, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On November 14, 2001 at 04:08:24, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On November 14, 2001 at 04:00:24, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On November 14, 2001 at 02:32:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>How do I read the distance to mate from this? >>>>>There is a mate in 10. >>>> >>>>My matefinder has no concept of plies, >>>>and hence mate depth is irrelevant for it. >>>> >>>>The solution and first move are guaranteed to be correct though. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>>I guess that it has a tree to prove the mate. >>> >>>What is the problem to calculate the number of plies in the longest line that >>>ends in mate in that tree? >> >>That value doesn't learn you much. >> >>If it picks a suboptimal solution, it may find a mate in 100 somewhere >>in the tree. >> >>You can get nearly the same info now by looking at 'MaxDepth', which >>is the deepest line it visited. Since it was 27 ply, the mate it found >>cannot be deeper than 13 moves. > >1)mate in 13 is 25 plies of legal moves. >It can be 27 plies from computer point of view only >if the computer does not see checkmate by the evaluation function and see the >checkmate when the king is captured. You're right, it's a mate in at most 14 then. >2)If you use no hash tables then Maxdepth is an upper bound but the tree may >give better upper bound because MaxDepth is also based on lines when mate was >not found. I don't use hash tables. I could add another counter that only triggers on positions where there is a mate. -- GCP
This page took 0.01 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.