Author: leonid
Date: 03:47:47 12/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2001 at 11:51:53, Heiner Marxen wrote: >On December 23, 2001 at 08:18:16, leonid wrote: > >[snip] > >>Probably our chess solving part is very close in response, even if your initial >>speed is much better. How we ever come to this closeness is a mystery for me. >>Few times I tryed to find some visible explanation for this but each time I >>could see later that my explanation was wrong. Fact is that our two solvers >>stays completely aside from main part of mate solvers in "heavy positions". > >That is not so much of a mystery to me: our two programs are the only >non-trivial, brute-force, full-width mate solvers I know of. I.e. these two >programs share a certain approach/algorithm which others don't do. >[Alybadix may be an exception (I just don't know)] I am not that sure about this since I used special mate solver inside of Hiarcs package. I presume that this specialized engin use brute force and full-width search. It have nothing like selective search. Its work also give impression that it make its hunt for mate in the same way like your program do. It look for it at constantly growing depth. In the same time, I found no visible difference between this engin branching factor for heavy positions and some other good chess programs, like Genius, when those programs explicitly look for mate. Cheers, Leonid.
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.