Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 15:38:25 02/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2002 at 15:50:43, leonid wrote: >On February 02, 2002 at 14:54:05, Ralf Elvsén wrote: > >>On February 02, 2002 at 09:24:40, leonid wrote: >> >>>On February 01, 2002 at 02:44:18, Mike Hood wrote: >> >>> >>>Probably, every chess program should have one mate solver chained to its search >>>for needed move. First work must be done by mate solver and only when mate not >>>found, second part should be activated. Mate solver must look (my guess) 6 ply >>>deep by brute force and later (if first search failed) 14 ply by selective. All >>>search by mate solver must take 0.05 sec, or even less. So, enough time for >>>second part of chess program to look for needed move, if mate is not found. >>> >>>By seeing efficency of brute force search done by Heiner's mate solver and speed >>>of actual chips, I think that 4 move brute force search (before each move) is >>>possible. Second selective search for mate could easily go as far as 8 moves. >>>This way 1 move mate blunder will be impossible for ever in every program. >>> >>>Usually mate, in average game, is only between 2 and 5 moves deep. >>> >>>Leonid. >>> >>Hiarcs played the move becuase of a bug. Without the bug it would >>have seen it of course. If it had a mate solver (btw, I don't believe >>in using time for finding mates that in most cases the >>ordinary search can find) there would be more code that could >>be buggy :) > >Mate solver is, probably, the only part of chess program that can be perfect. >Reason for this is clear winner move for mate position, or sure absence of it. >This help in spotting all bugs in early stage of mate solver creation. Presence >of perfect mate solver, inside of chess program, give to its chess program one >additional chance to be bug free. Additional? :) N(total bugs) =N(bugs in ordinary search) + N(bugs in mate solver) Since N(bugs in mate solver) >= 0 we have N(total bugs) >= N(bugs in ordinary search) QED (just teasing you... :) I haven's written a mate solver, so I don't understand what you can find in 0.05s ? The only time it will help you is when you actually find a mate. How many positions can there be (relatively speaking) where a mate solver finds a mate in 0.05s but an ordinary program can't find the mate or another winning move during the ordinary search time (which I expect to be much longer) ? Sure, if the time spent is 0.05s then it can't hurt but I expect the increase in playing strength would be microscopic. Ralf I am surprised that until now all chess >programs were done otherwise. > >Leonid. > > > >>Ralf
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.