Author: John Merlino
Date: 12:15:07 04/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2002 at 14:49:12, leonid wrote: >On April 13, 2002 at 14:36:31, John Merlino wrote: > >>On April 13, 2002 at 07:49:31, leonid wrote: >> >>>Hi! >>> >>>Recently I found that for many programs selective search for mate is pretty >>>different. At least, in few recent mate positions my default selective was >>>useless. I am curious to see how many other programs can solve this position by >>>selective. Mine was useless on this even if it look like to be ideal for >>>selective. Position in itself is not deep, or very difficult. >>> >>>[D]1qbqkbq1/QBRNBNQ1/1QnQpQn1/1q1RQ1p1/3rn3/2Q2Q2/Q6K/1r4r1 w - - >>> >>>Please indicate your result, never mind your way of solving this mate. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Leonid. >> >>I don't know if it's the shortest mate, but it took Chessmaster a long time (on >>a PIII-733) to find Mate in 10 anyway (with some HUGE evals along the way), as >>the first seven moves are all non-checking moves: > > >So, actually Chessmaster took this position by selective and not that far from >shortest one. Pretty good! > >This position is mate in 9 moves. > >Cheers, >Leonid. I'm trying Chessmaster's Solve for Mate mode. It finished depth 8 in just a few minutes, but is taking quite a long time to finish depth 9. It still hasn't announced mate in 9, and it has been going for almost 40 minutes on my PIII-733 (over five minutes longer than it took to announce Mate in 10 via selective search). jm
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.