Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 15:28:51 09/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2004 at 18:04:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... What if a capture is a check or check evasion? Acceptable? Stuart
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.