Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Junior 8 doesn't see this simple mate

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 13:16:55 08/21/03

Go up one level in this thread


On August 21, 2003 at 16:09:42, Dieter Buerssner wrote:

>On August 21, 2003 at 16:02:35, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>I did say that Junior probably gains considerably by this assumption. My
>>objection is a matter of principle: given enough time a program should play
>>correctly in any (practical) position.
>
>Exactly the same here. Omid, when I read your paper about null move pruning, I
>thought, it could fail for this objection. Did I read it wrong.
>
>A position discussed in the German CSS-Forum:
>
>[D] 8/1B6/8/5p2/8/8/5Qrq/1K1R2bk w - -

4 seconds on my 733 MHz system:

depth     time    nodes  score  variation
 1/ 7->   0.02       0k   2.15  1.b7g2 h2g2 2.f2f5
 2/ 9->   0.02       0k   2.22  1.d1f1 f5f4 2.b7g2 h2g2 3.f2g2 h1g2
                                4.f1f4
 3/11->   0.02       1k   3.10  1.f2f5 h2g3 2.f5h5
 4/11->   0.03       3k   3.10  1.f2f5 h2g3 2.f5h5 g3h2 3.b7g2 h1g2
 5/13->   0.06      12k   2.24  1.f2f3 f5f4 2.d1d2 g1f2 3.f3f2
 6/13     0.07      14k   2.30  1.f2f3 f5f4 2.d1d2 g1f2 3.d2f2 h2g1
                                4.b1a2
 6/14     0.09      19k     ++  1.f2f5
 6/15     0.15      38k   7.02  1.f2f5 h2h6 2.b7g2 h1h2 3.d1d6 h6e3
                                4.g2f3
 6/15->   0.17      41k   7.02  1.f2f5 h2h6 2.b7g2 h1h2 3.d1d6 h6e3
                                4.g2f3
 7/16     0.25      75k     --  1.b1c2
 7/19     0.49     136k  -6.53  1.b1c2 h2c7 2.c2d3 c7b7 3.d1g1 g2g1
                                4.f2h4 h1g2 5.h4g5 g2f2 6.g5f5
 7/19     0.70     193k   6.52  1.f2f5 h2h6 2.b7g2 h1h2 3.d1d2 g1d4
                                4.f5d3 h6e3
 7/19->   0.71     195k   6.52  1.f2f5 h2h6 2.b7g2 h1h2 3.d1d2 g1d4
                                4.f5d3 h6e3
 8/19     0.88     247k     ++  1.f2f5
 8/19     1.19     362k   7.13  1.f2f5 h2h6 2.b7g2 h1h2 3.g2c6 h6c6
                                4.f5h5 h2g2 5.h5g4 g2h2 6.d1g1
 8/19->   1.46     456k   7.13  1.f2f5 h2h6 2.b7g2 h1h2 3.g2c6 h6c6
                                4.f5h5 h2g2 5.h5g4 g2h2 6.d1g1
 9/21     2.24     716k   7.31  1.f2f5 h2g3 2.f5h7 g3h2 3.b7g2 h1g2
                                4.d1d2 g2g3 5.h7d3 g3g4 6.d2h2 g1h2
                                7.b1c2
 9/21     2.45     801k     ++  1.f2f3
 9/21     2.62     858k   9.22  1.f2f3 f5f4 2.d1d2 g1f2 3.d2f2 h2g3
                                4.f3h5 h1g1 5.f2g2 g3g2 6.b7g2 g1g2
 9/21     4.40    1643k  18.26  1.f2d4 f5f4 2.b1a1 f4f3 3.b7f3 h2e5
                                4.d1g1 h1h2 5.g1g2 h2h3 6.d4e5
 9/21     4.65    1746k     #3  1.f2a7 f5f4 2.b7f3 h2h5 3.a7g1



>
>A mate in 3. My engine, using a different sort of null move pruning (that
>theoretically really will play correctly in any position given enough time),
>needed over 10 minutes ...
>
>An engine can be lucky (or clever) with the evals, and null move pruning may not
>avoid finding the mate fast in the above position. In general, however the above
>position will be unsolvable for normal null move algorithms.
>
>Regards,
>Dieter



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.