Author: Tom Likens
Date: 06:34:59 03/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 2004 at 06:22:00, Tord Romstad wrote: >On March 23, 2004 at 22:36:28, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>How long for your program to solve these on 950 MHz equivalent? >>2b5/1r6/2kBp1p1/p2pP1P1/2pP4/1pP3K1/1R3P2/8 b - - bm Rb4; id "WAC.230"; >>2rq1bk1/p4p1p/1p4p1/3b4/3B1Q2/8/P4PpP/3RR1K1 w - - bm Re8; id "WAC.131"; >>4r1k1/p1qr1p2/2pb1Bp1/1p5p/3P1n1R/1B3P2/PP3PK1/2Q4R w - - bm Qxf4; id "WAC.141"; >>5rk1/2p4p/2p4r/3P4/4p1b1/1Q2NqPp/PP3P1K/R4R2 b - - bm Qg2+; id "WAC.163"; >>8/7p/5k2/5p2/p1p2P2/Pr1pPK2/1P1R3P/8 b - - bm Rxb2; id "WAC.002"; > >I'll give you my numbers for a PIV 2.4 GHz, and leave to others to translate >to a 950 MHz machine. > >WAC230: My engine can probably search for weeks without solving this one. >WAC131: 6 plies, 22600 nodes, 0.20 seconds. >WAC141: 6 plies, 18310 nodes, 0.16 seconds. >WAC163: 9 plies, 493949 nodes, 2.61 seconds. >WAC002: 11 plies, 452799, 1.36 seconds. > >I agree with Martin that there is no longer any reason to use WAC. The >last time I tried the whole suite, Gothmog solved 298/300 at 5 seconds >per position (as usual, number 100 and 230 were the unsolved ones). Most >other engines probably get similar scores. > >Except for positions 100 and 230, which are more about eval than about >search, all positions are almost trivial. ECMGCP is a much better suite. > >Tord Yep, same story for my engine (100 and 230 don't get solved). GCP's ECM test suite is a *much* better test. Djinn gets about 125 of these at 30 sec/pos on my FX-51. I'll probably run it tonight at 5 sec/pos but my suspicion is that it will get less ;-) By the way, does anyone know how crafty does on ECM at 5 sec/pos? --tom
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.