Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:25:21 09/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2003 at 20:09:33, Uri Blass wrote:
>On September 10, 2003 at 19:18:24, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On September 10, 2003 at 03:38:08, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On September 10, 2003 at 03:15:29, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On September 10, 2003 at 00:01:19, Mike Byrne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On September 09, 2003 at 23:25:59, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On September 09, 2003 at 20:47:19, Mike Byrne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.chessgenius.com/pc/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>New features of version 7.1
>>>>>>>Improved graphics:
>>>>>>>Better support for high resolution displays.
>>>>>>>Addition piece sets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Author: Richard Lang, one of the great Chess Programmers from the early years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I currently have Chess Genius 3 installed on my Win2K machine thanks to this
>>>>>>>link.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>webpage
>>>>>>>http://www.gambitchess.com/progr.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>direct link
>>>>>>>http://www.gambitchess.com/pub/cg3dos.zip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Although I am registered use Chess Genius 3, my disk has gone bad a long time
>>>>>>>ago. I believe Chess Genius 3 will still do reasonanbly well against many of
>>>>>>>the top programs today on equal hardware at fast time controls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No I'm sorry, it always loses with a significant margin. Even if you play
>>>>>>bullet. You have to use very slow hardware and fast time controls and you will
>>>>>>indeed see it do "reasonably well". But on todays hardware, even at fast time
>>>>>>controls I would not say that Genius is still competitive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That surprises me -- but if you say so. At longer time controls does it do
>>>>>better on faster hardware -- or is strictly short tc games on slow hardware?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When you use faster hardware (or longer time controls, that's the same), Genius
>>>>is even less competitive.
>>>
>>>It is not exactly the same.
>>>There are programs that earn more speed from faster hardware.
>>>
>>>Genius was written when the old hardware was used so it is logical to expect it
>>>to be relatively faster in old hardware.
>>>
>>>It may be interesting also to compare time for solution in old hardware and in
>>>new hardware.
>>>
>>>Maybe you may find that new programs are 10 times faster on the new hardware
>>>when Genius is only 5 times faster.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>My own experience.
>>>>
>>>>Chess Genius has a kind of "explosive" power. It will find some combinations in
>>>>0.01s when other programs need 0.5s on modern hardware. But from then it gets
>>>>worse. In general if you expect a modern program to need one minute to find a
>>>>combination, expect Genius to need 2 or more.
>>>>
>>>>I have an idea about the origin of this problem, but I'm not certain.
>>>
>>>I think that one problem is that genius(at least genius3) limit its extensions.
>>>selective search cannot be more than 12 plies.
>>>
>>>There are cases when you need to extend more than 12 plies in order to solve
>>>hard combinations.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm not sure if the so-called "selective search" part of Genius is limited this
>>way. I'm also not sure if the "non selective" part is selective or not. So in
>>the end it's very hard to tell what is meant by "selective part" in Genius.
>>
>>But anyway I don't think it is relevant in this case. Even if extensions are
>>limited to 12 plies it's not a real handicap. Maybe limiting them to 3 or 4
>>plies would be, but 12 is high enough to hardly notice any problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>The following position was posted by dana some days ago when genius cannot see
>the mate even after hours when chessmaster see it immediately.
>
>[D]4r1r1/bB4p1/8/2p1kPKn/n7/3R4/3P4/2B5 w - -
>
>It is clear that with only 12 plies of extension you are not going to see mate
>in 16 in a reasonable time.
>
>It is logical to give more plies of extension with more time and genius
>extensions seem to be limited.
>
>Uri
If it is the same position that I have seen some days ago, the answer is
different.
Chess Genius seems to have a hard limit of 32 plies. Seeing a mate in 16 may
require to be able to see 33 plies deep, and that is the most likely reason why
Genius cannot solve this mate.
That's exactly what I have said when this position was posted. I know you said
it was because of the 12 plies selective search, but apparently you did not read
my answer.
Christophe
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.