Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 18:45:09 12/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2001 at 20:23:43, leonid wrote: >On December 22, 2001 at 17:21:52, Heiner Marxen wrote: > >>On December 22, 2001 at 09:21:12, leonid wrote: >> >>>Hi! >>> >>>This one is very accessible: >>> >>>[D]2qQQq2/r6P/b1PqqR1N/r6B/n1BRQQ1B/q6k/q1NKNP1q/bq4qn w - - >> >>According to Chest this is a mate in 9. And yes, it is easy: just 101 seconds >>on my K7/600: > >Hi, Heiner! > >Your time look like very good. When I saw your time I wanted to go back and see >my for nine moves for brute force, but finally forgot to try this. Had very busy >day with my work that I brought home. > >At least, time for brute force up to 8 moves is: > >Moves Time Branching factor NPS > >4 0.82 sec 91k > 6.6 >5 5.43 sec 71k > 5.8 >6 31.8 sec 59k > 4.97 >7 2 min 35 sec 51k > 4.13 >8 10 min 41 sec 51k > >Cheers, >Leonid. My timing: # 1 0.00s 0kN 0.87 1- 0 # 2 0.00s 0kN 1.00 1- 0 # 3 0.02s 1kN [ 15.01] 0.96 70- 0 # 4 0.14s [ 7.00] 11kN [ 8.31] 1.06 546- 0 # 5 0.83s [ 5.93] 55kN [ 5.14] 1.28 3548- 0 # 6 4.06s [ 4.89] 253kN [ 4.60] 1.61 19237- 0 # 7 13.95s [ 3.44] 825kN [ 3.26] 2.91 67658- 0 # 8 42.52s [ 3.05] 2414kN [ 2.93] 5.04 205998- 9 # 9 101.03s [ 2.38] 5642kN [ 2.34] 7.81 487627- 4549 Once more our EBF is quite comparable, and even the nodes/second. I'm a bit puzzled how your program does that without a hash table? Obviously your move ordering is a bit better, while my basic speed (as seen from the small depthes) is better. The hash table does not make that big a difference. Sometimes I have seen (from experiments with Chest) that a bad move ordering is in part compensated by the hash table, and a good move ordering greatly decreases the additional effect of the hash table. This effect seems to be involved here. Cheers, Heiner
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.