Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 19:45:47 09/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2004 at 13:39:44, Henk Bossinade wrote:
>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.
I've chosen ply/ply. I was told ply is better since it returns a lower
value for a mate discovered higher in the tree. Not sure if depth/depth
or ply/ply minimizes the moves to mate. Thought depth/depth did that...
>Also instead of 'value == -MATE+ply+2' you can try 'value <= -MATE+maxply'
>
I've tried that in the past. It blows up my search.
>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 0.15 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.