Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:04:05 09/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2004 at 14:25:34, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 30, 2004 at 09:35:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 30, 2004 at 02:53:16, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>The null move killed, win-at-chess 141, has itself >>>finally been killed, vanquished with the help of >>>two board contributors whose combined suggestion >>>led to a 17-fold reduction in time-to-solve. >>> >>>This posting announces those winners. First the >>>stats! >>> >>>Now solved in 5.49 seconds on a P3 @ 1ghz it would be >>>solved in under 2 seconds on more modern equipment. >>>Formerly it took 95 seconds to solve. >>> >>>That's good enough for me. And it's good enough to win >>>the $50 contest posed recently since it broke the >>>10-second-and-under-barrieras posed in the contest >>>posting. >>> >>>The search: >>> >>>Alpha=-1332 Beta=-531 Maxdepth=9999999 MaxTime=99999 >>> 1/ 9 g2f1 0.00 -953 511 g2f1 f4d5 >>> g2f1 f4d5 >>> 2/ 9 g2f1 0.01 -953 884 >>> g2f1 f4d5 c1g5 >>> 3/12 g2f1 0.06 -953 11929 >>> g2f1 f4d5 c1g5 d5f6 >>> 4/16 g2f1 0.39 -953 72781 >>> g2f1 f4d5 b3d5 c6d5 f1g2 d6e7 >>> 5/24> g2f1 3.83 -552 978925 >>> g2f1 b5b4 b3a4 f4d5 f6g5 d5e7 >>> 5/25 c1f4 5.49 2260 1420038 c1f4 d6f4 h4h5 g6h5 h1h5 f4h6 h5h6 c7g3 g2g3 d7d >>>6 >>> c1f4 d6f4 h4h5 g6h5 h1h5 f4h6 h5h6 c7g3 g2g3 d7d >>>6 >>> 6/25 c1f4 6.06 2260 1519145 >>> c1f4 d6f4 h4h5 g6h5 h1h5 f4h6 h5h6 c7g3 g2g3 d7d >>>6 >>> >>>And with it the announcement -- because of the contribution >>>of Will Singleton in indicating that null move should be >>>avoided before leaves in the main search (and the sense >>>of a comparison in an old commented out section of the >>>code associated with disabled null move verification having been >>>intended to do what Will suggested but having been miscoded >>>by me and then #ifdefed out months ago) and Uri Blass' >>>comments about my recaptures being too free and easy, >>>the program went from a total of 95 seconds >>>for wac 141 to 5.49 after these two suggestions were >>>implemented. >> >>I doubt null-move is the problem. I do null-move _everywhere_ and Crafty has no >>problem solving wac 141 doing so... >> >> >>> >>>So Will and Uri are the winners, if they wish to accept, >>>of the divided $50 prize. Because Will's contribution was >>>more significant but less work for him and Uri's contribution >>>was less significant but with more work for him, but in either >>>case without the change from the other's suggestion the result >>>would not have been as dramatic getting down to <= 10 seconds >>>as stated in the earlier contest challenge a day or two ago, >>>the award has been divided in half for the 2 winners. >>> >>>Will and Uri are welcome to send me, and only if they wish >>>to collect, their postal mail addresses, to cracraft@cox.net >>>and a check for $25 will be sent out to each. >>> >>>In the future, more contests will be held like this whenever >>>I run into a huge roadblock but I see none looming presently, >>>including a rather unusual one that I am not ready to announce. >>> >>>Thanks everybody for the help on 141 -- and thanks to Will >>>Singleton and Uri Blass. >>> >>>Stuart > >What is your quiescence like? Do you investigate moves-that-check >at the first ply of quiescence? My q-search has _no_ checks or check-evasions whatsoever. Just captures, and the captures have to appear to be at least equal using SEE or they get discarded as well...
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.