Author: leonid
Date: 16:39:32 09/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2002 at 16:58:23, Heiner Marxen wrote:
>On September 14, 2002 at 10:44:49, leonid wrote:
>
>>On September 14, 2002 at 10:14:52, Paul wrote:
>>
>>>On September 14, 2002 at 09:47:21, leonid wrote:
>>>
>>>>On September 14, 2002 at 09:26:25, leonid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On September 14, 2002 at 08:51:31, Paul wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On September 14, 2002 at 07:55:35, leonid wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This mate is easy and only 9 moves deep:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[D]bqRNNkqr/Q7/qPnPqBqN/Q4q2/5Qr1/5q2/5nQ1/bQqQqBKR w - -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Leonid,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pretz (p3/1000) also finds this one easy, it gets this in 3 seconds:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>00:03 WM9 06 Nxe6+ Qgxe6 Be7+ Nxe7 dxe7+ Qxe7 Qaxf5+ Bf6 Nxf6+ Qaxc8 Nh7+ Ke8
>>>>>>Qxg6+ Rxg6 Qgxg6+ Qf7 Qaxf7#
>
>Chest (Athlon 1500+, 128MB hash) confirms this in 56.21 secs:
Hi, Heiner!
>PV: Nxe6+ Qgxe6 Bg7+ Bxg7 Qbxf5+ Bf6 Nxf6+ Qaxc8 Nh7+ Ke8 d7+ Kd8 dxc8=Q+ Kxc8
>Qfc7+ Qxc7 Qxc7#
>
> Nxe6+ Qgxe6 Bg7+ Bxg7 Qbxf5+ ...+6
> Qxg7 Qbxf5+ ...+3
> Qexe6 Be7+ =*= dxe7+ ...+5
> Qfxe6 Bg7#
Probably our branching were close even if my initial speed (before 4 moves)
should be better for You.
I looked brute force only 8 moves in order to know that it is really 9 moves
position. It, on my usual setting (Celeron 600Mhz, no hash) was:
Move Time Branching factor NPS
4 0.27 sec 125k
4.6
5 1.26 sec 105k
5.34
6 6.75 sec 80k
4.95
7 33.46 79k
5.08
8 2 min 50 sec
>It is so easy/fast, because black has mating resources, too, like Rxg2#.
>
>>>>>>>Still, maybe, You will be tempted for something more heavy and I this way will
>>>>>>>be able to find more on this position:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[D]2qRQq2/p6P/q1BqqR1N/r6B/n1QNQQ1B/r6k/b1QKNP1q/bq4qn w - -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On description of this mate I can see that it was solved by selective in 13
>>>>>>>moves but brute force search went not up to the end in order to find shortest
>>>>>>>move. Brute force search, without finding any mate, went only 9 moves deep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This one was indeed a lot more difficult, mine didn't fare so well here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>06:49 WM11 07 Q8xe6+ Qdxe6 Qff3+ Rxf3 Qxf3+ Kxh4 Nhf5+ Rxf5 Nxf5+ ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So it found a mate in 11 in almost 7 minutes, with an incomplete pv ... these
>>>>>>d#*&#@rned hashtables ;) ... will have to think about this ... any tips anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please indicate Your result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>Leonid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for your mates as usual ...
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks, Paul!
>>>>>
>>>>>Now I can see that second one is no far then 11 moves. I can even put this
>>>>>position at 10 moves by brute force for night. If braching factor will not
>>>>>suddenly jump, then it should be enough time for me for finding its depth.
>>>>>
>>>>>First position have excellent time!
>>>>>
>>>>>Mine, on usual setting, found mate in 1.75 sec.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Leonid.
>>>>
>>>>Paul, just after writing my message, I started to see second position in my file
>>>>to indicate 11 moves. When I finally found it (I not indicate before on what
>>>>page I had it), I looked that it was in reality solved by selected in 11 moves,
>>>>just as You said. Before upper part of page was covered with page keeper and it
>>>>is how I missed some additional description. If I knew this yesterday, when I
>>>>found this position, I could put search for 10 moves by brute force at night.
>>>
>>>Hey!! ... so you tricked us ... that's not fair ... I would have found it much
>>>faster if I'd known! ... just kiddin' ... :)
>>
>>I was actually tricked by myself. I did expected that this position was very
>>difficult since I could see that it was solved by very slow selective and only
>>at 13 moves. 13 moves at large default setting (I use it before searching by
>>much easier solution) took 13.5 minutes to solve. When I looked into 11 moves
>>selective solution its paramether indicated that solution was almost simple.
>>
>>
>>>>Selective in 11 moves was solved in 18 seconds. Usual setting.
>>>
>>>Not bad at all ... you really should implement hash to get a bit faster though
>>>... ;)
>
>Chest is still running for depth 11, but after 3478 secs has already reported
>that there is no mate in 10. So, we are already sure, that 11 is minimal
>depth.
Paul just said to me that there are no mate in 10.
># 4 0.09s 17kN [ 10.28] 1.07 737- 0
># 5 0.96s [ 10.67] 137kN [ 7.88] 1.21 8654- 0
># 6 6.32s [ 6.58] 791kN [ 5.79] 1.49 66512- 0
># 7 31.30s [ 4.95] 3675kN [ 4.65] 2.11 351756- 0
># 8 143.98s [ 4.60] 16349kN [ 4.45] 2.73 1718242- 7352
># 9 668.36s [ 4.64] 73337kN [ 4.49] 3.46 8452143- 5252957
># 10 3477.74s [ 5.20] 373030kN [ 5.09] 4.02 45004182- 41804949
On mine, with usual setting:
Move Time Branching factor NPS
4 1.26 sec 113k
8.0
5 10.16 sec 67k
7.52
6 1 min 16 sec 67k
6.28
7 7 min 58 57k
5.21
8 41 min 35 sec 59k
5.21
9 3h 37m 14s 60k
Cheers,
Leonid.
>Cheers,
>Heiner
>
>
>>I do expect that one day I will come back to my programming. At least, this last
>>week I had plaintly of work and it could be that needed second computer will be
>>not that long to wait for. Still 64 bits gadget will be ideal to start with. I
>>am sure that when new, 64 bits, computer will arrive chatting of people here
>>will be very animated. Too many things to redo, or write from scratch.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Leonid.
>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Leonid.
>>>
>>>Groetjes,
>>>Paul
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.