Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 19:05:52 11/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 1998 at 21:19:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 24, 1998 at 20:28:50, Quenton Fyfe wrote: > >>Afraid I can't reproduce this either. > 6.5 hours on a P6 200, and CM5000 is >>still planning Qb6. That's >500m positions examined. So unless there were >>special settings involved (CM5K is quite configurable) then it's no go. >> >>I've also run Fritz for about 36 hours on the same hardware, and it wanted to >>play Qb6 too. >> >>Bob - can we work out from the Deep Blue node rate the maximum time it should >>take on with brute force search to find out what's wrong with Qb6? I guess it'd >>be weeks huh? >> >>Cheers >> >>Quenton Fyfe > > >It is difficult to do. IE take the nolot positions and try them on all the >programs. You will find one program that gets one particular position quicker >than all the others, yet it gets killed on the other positions. CM5xxx is a >good example... it finds lots of good tactical shots that take otherprograms >minutes or hours to find. That's why it isn't easy to figure out how deep we >have to search... The main programs searching on Qb6/axb5 are/were mine, >Bruce's and Ernst's... and all are null-move programs. It is possible that >this is a null-move killer position as we have seen in the past. and if you >have followed null-move "problems" there are some positions a null-move search >won't *ever* solve... Can you give an example (or more) of a position like this? Also, what factor(s) cause these to never be solved when using null-move? Thanks. Jeremiah
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.