Author: leonid
Date: 08:23:41 12/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
>For Chest this cannot be (logically) correct. The first thing a mate-in-N >does, is to compute the mate-in-(N-1). So the former cannot be faster. >That must be a timing problem/inaccuracy. >Do I miss something important? Hi, Heiner! Just look into fact that with new depth procedure of search will be changed. Specialized files, for instance, will be at new depth. Somewhere it can bring different search sequence and with it even better time for higher depth. I will try, by precaution, to indicate you what I know as fact and where I am only guessing. Fact: When search is done for position that contain mate in 8 (8 only as example) that in some visible minority of mates, mate in 9 will take less time. For sure I know this for selective and "complex selective" search. Anyway, for identical selective search, in some instances, mate in 9 can take less time that in 8. This I have seen repeatedly for many positions, since very often I start finding mate by selective in 13 moves and only later move to much lower level. This is how I could compare. My presumption: The same is true for brute force search. I have impression that I even saw this in the past but now, when I must say something as sure fact, feel me not that certain. Reason for this is that brute force finding is executed for my positions when I already know that mate existe in it. I start searching by brute force from below (4, 5, 6...) ending my search exactly at shortest mate. Disgracefully, I don't keep all data from my positions that can't indicate you those positions right now. Will try to keep this data in future positions. Cheers, Leonid. >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.