Author: leonid
Date: 12:09:03 11/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2003 at 14:39:50, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On November 04, 2003 at 11:06:27, leonid wrote: > >>Try the next position that have good branching factor and, probably, will be >>easy to solve by selective, or by brute force search. > >Hmmm. I used my chess engine (Yace), which in your terminoligy, you would >probably call selective. It still should be reliable (never announce a mate in >x, when there is no mate in x but perhaps only a mate in x+1/2/... Of course it >might announce mate in x, when mate in x-1/2/... is possible). I did neither get >a good branching factor, nor an easy solution .... > >> 1qkrr3/Rn2q3/PRPBqQ2/nqpbqB2/NQ2Nb2/1Q2Qq2/1Q2Qq2/1K2Qq2 w - - > >... actually got no solution at all in 30 minutes on my P4 2.53 GHz with 100 MB >hash and using about 50% of the CPU (another analysis, that I did not want to >stop is running at the same time with more hash). > >Perhaps, it might be easy by selective search, when extending more aggressively >(many checks in a row are possible). BTW. It took 17 seconds to finish the depth >1 search. I guess many engines will evene need longer (but did not try any). >Branching factor from depth 1 to 2 was indeed good (17 s, then 21 s). ply 3: >1:02, 4: 14:20. Hardly one could consider it good ... > >I don't complain at all, but personally (and probably I am not the only one >here), I find more "natural" chess positions for mate problems more interesting. >Of course, it was my choice, to test your position anyway (I was curios). >Especially, I would find those problems most interesting, where a mate comes >rather surprisingly after a rather balanced score. Seeing several iterations in >a row with rather high score from almost the beginning seems less interesting >for normal playing engines. Sure, when we have 12 Qs on the board already, a >rather high score may not mean much. > >You are probably aware, that the position cannot be reached in a chess games. > >My favorite mate problem (already discussed here several times) is: > >6r1/2rp1kpp/2qQp3/p3Pp1P/1pP2P2/1P2KP2/P5R1/6R1 w - - Hi, And how deep is Your position? My mate solver was done to search no more than 13 moves deep. My previous position is mate in 11. Is Your program written with special logic for solving mate, or it is general chess program with possibility to find mate? Cheers, Leonid. >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.