Author: F. Huber
Date: 15:19:42 05/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2005 at 17:56:34, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 27, 2005 at 16:57:35, F. Huber wrote: > >>On May 27, 2005 at 16:53:49, Rob Basham wrote: >> >>>Well, at least on this move...:-) >>> >>>Mate in 10.... >>> >>>[D]4r1k1/rp2Bppp/p1b5/1q2Q3/R7/1P5P/P4PP1/3R2K1 w - - 0 1 >>> >>> >>>Both the Risc (dedicated unit) and Fritz 8 on PC find Qxg7+ >>>in just 9 seconds! >>> >>>P3-850 >>> >>>Rob >> >>Well, and ChestUCI finds it in less than 1 sec on my slow Celeron/400! :-) >> >>Regards, >>Franz. > >But ChestUCI *default setting* needs 50 minutes to find it on A3000 > >New game, 10'/40+10'/40+10'/40 >4r1k1/rp2Bppp/p1b5/1q2Q3/R7/1P5P/P4PP1/3R2K1 w - - 0 1 > >Analysis by ChestUCI Ver.3.7: > >1.Qxg7+ > +- (#10) Depth: 10 00:50:05 1081113kN > >(, 28.05.2005) > >It proves that there is no mate in 9 in the process. > >Uri There are 3 important points to mention: 1) Do you really think, that it is fair to compare ChestUCI´s default settings (where it _proves_ the shortest mate with a brute-force search) with a normal chess engine, which does all kinds of search extensions, cutoffs, ... ? Or is it really so hard to switch _one_ option to Automatic-mode? 2) And as I can see from your output, you´re still using a _very_ old version of ChestUCI, which doesn´t even have the new ´ThreatDepth´ feature - and exactly _this_ function speeds up its search dramatcally! 3) When comparing the solution times with normal chess engines (like this dedicated RISC unit or Fritz 8) it´s not necessary at all to _prove_ that there is no mate in 9, simply because NO engine actually _proves_ this, when looking for a mate - so why requiring such a prove from ChestUCI? Franz.
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.