Author: Henk Bossinade
Date: 10:39:44 09/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2004 at 01:04:52, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>On September 26, 2004 at 15:53:53, David B Weller wrote:
>
>> 2 -223 0.01 375 {12} Kf1 Re2
>> 3 -205 0.02 1061 {13} Kf1 Re2 Kg1
>>4r1k1/p1qr1p2/2pb1Bp1/1p5p/3P1n1R/1B3P2/PP3PK1/2Q4R w - - bm Qxf4; id "WAC.141";
>>
>> 4 -239 0.05 3815 {18} Kf1 Re2 Qc3 b4
>> 5+ -199 0.18 16983 {23} Kf1
>> 5 -185 0.35 36630 {23} Kf1 a5 Qb1 a4 Bc2
>> 6 -206 0.86 91286 {25} Kf1 Re2 Qb1 Rd2 Kg1 Nd3
>> 7 -175 2.48 248962 {27} Kf1 Re2 Qb1 Rd2 Qc1 Rd3 Be5 Bxe5 dxe5
>> 8+ -135 7.29 832695 {29} Qxf4
>> 8 299 9.88 1150509 {29} Qxf4 Bxf4 Rxh5 gxh5 Rxh5 Bh6 Rxh6 Qh2+ Rxh2
>> 9 299 13.58 1503202 {29} Qxf4 Bxf4 Rxh5 gxh5 Rxh5 Bh6 Rxh6 Qh2+ Rxh2
>>10+ 339 25.34 2971184 {30} Qxf4
>>Knps: 94[r=745471 q=4971821(86%)]Qxf4
>>fh=83% bf=3.17
>>ext: ck=107333 p7=1950 mt=1051 1r=1488 re=2311 delay=0 good=0
>>red: nm=93529 fc=16253558 zg=0
>>ht=88%
>>move c1f4
>>
>David,
>
>Hey that's great -- only 7.29 seconds. Congratulations.
>
>Okay, so what are the goods? How did you do it?
>
>Can you repost your web URL for the GES that did the above and
>cite the relevant portions of code you believe are responsible for
>your superior time for Qxf4!
>
>Stuart
Here's my wac141 with mate threat:
time score nodes pv
5. 0.89 -70 84104 Kg2f1 Re8e2 Qc1b1 Re2d2 Qb1c1 Rd2e2 Qc1b1
6 4.51 -70 470874 Kg2f1 Re8f8 Qc1b1 Nf4d5 Bf6g5 Qc7c8 Qb1e1
6 7.27 -69 762159 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5 Rh1xPh5 Bf4h6
6. 7.27 -69 762159 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5 Rh1xPh5 Bf4h6
7 9.21 -69 1026574 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5 Rh1xPh5 Bf4h6
7. 11.86 -69 1259450 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5 Rh1xPh5 Bf4h6
8 32.27 ++ 3422740 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5 Rh1xPh5 Bf4h6
8 83.38 260 9293559 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5
8. 87.74 260 9778848 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5
here without:
7. 13.49 -70 1458658 Kg2f1 Re8f8 Qc1b1
8 90.45 -70 9788445 Kg2f1 Pa7a5 Rh1g1
8 112.56 ++ 11842418 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5 Rh1xPh5
8 157.69 260 16856578 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5
8. 160.32 260 17120337 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5
I noticed in the search() code you posted that you return a mate score like
this:
if (legals == 0) {
if (checked) {
best = -MATE+depth;
} else {
best = STALEMATE;
}
and your mate threat code looks like this:
if (!extended && value == -MATE+ply+2) {
// printf("mate threat:\n");listmvs(hist);pbd(bd);getchar();
extend=1;
extended=1;
depth++;
}
I think you should use either depth/depth or ply/ply but not like it is.
Also instead of 'value == -MATE+ply+2' you can try 'value <= -MATE+maxply'
Some other things:
- uncomment the printf line above and make sure you get the correct threat
positions with white rook on open h file
- for debugging purposes get rid of some possibly distorting variables:
- use only material evaluation (it's a purely tactical position)
- use unlimited extensions
hb
This page took 0.01 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.