Author: Lance Perkins
Date: 00:17:15 10/06/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2005 at 02:37:34, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 06, 2005 at 02:13:50, Lance Perkins wrote: > >>On October 05, 2005 at 21:03:11, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>>A comp played this move against my comp on ICC today, took less than 30 secs. >>>Can any program find it as fast? >>> >>>[d]3rn1k1/2qbrp1p/1p1ppnpQ/p5NP/1PP1P3/P1N4R/4BPP1/3R2K1 w - - bm Rdd3 >> >>Need 42 secs... >> >>Thinker 5.0c on a 2.4ghz AMD >> 8 99 145 1347078 h5g6 f7g6 d1d2 >> 8 105 186 1649244 h3h4 d7c6 e2g4 c7c8 >> 9 108 848 7140678 f2f4 a5b4 a3b4 d7c6 e2g4 >>10 96 1787 14663556 h5g6 f7g6 h3h4 d7c6 e2d3 >>10 99 2037 16294503 h3h4 d7c6 d1d2 a5b4 h5g6 >>10 162 4246 29903901 d1d3 d6d5 c4d5 > >congratulations. > >42*2.4/2=50.4 seconds > >50.4*32=1608.3 > >Thinker is more than 32 times faster than Fruit2.2 that still does not find it >after more than 35 minutes on my A3000(2ghz) after searching more than 1,300,000 >Knodes > >If you can only be more than 32 times faster than Fruit2.2 in every position >then thinker may be more than 200 elo better than Fruit2.2 > >Note that Fruit2.2's behaviour is interesring. >At depth 15 it seems to be hypnotized by Rd3 >It cannot be convinced to play it but also cannot leave analyzing this move. > >Here is Fruit2.2's output(after 35 minutes of analysis) > >New game, >3rn1k1/2qbrp1p/1p1ppnpQ/p5NP/1PP1P3/P1N4R/4BPP1/3R2K1 w - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Fruit 2.2: > >1.hxg6 hxg6 > +- (1.96) Depth: 1/8 00:00:00 >1.hxg6 fxg6 2.bxa5 > +- (1.68) Depth: 2/15 00:00:00 >1.hxg6 fxg6 2.Rd2 axb4 3.axb4 > +- (1.68) Depth: 3/15 00:00:00 >1.hxg6 fxg6 2.Rd2 Bc6 3.bxa5 > +- (1.48) Depth: 4/15 00:00:00 >1.bxa5 bxa5 2.hxg6 fxg6 3.Nb5 Bxb5 4.cxb5 > +- (1.57) Depth: 4/16 00:00:00 >1.Rd2 axb4 2.axb4 gxh5 3.Bxh5 Qxc4 > +- (1.63) Depth: 4/17 00:00:00 >1.Rd2 Bc6 2.hxg6 fxg6 3.b5 Bb7 > +- (1.59) Depth: 5/23 00:00:00 >1.Rd2 Bc6 2.Bd1 axb4 3.axb4 Ng7 4.hxg6 hxg6 > +- (1.46) Depth: 6/24 00:00:00 69kN >1.Rh4 Bc6 2.Bg4 axb4 3.axb4 Ng7 4.hxg6 hxg6 > +- (1.53) Depth: 6/26 00:00:00 156kN >1.b5 Ra8 2.Rdd3 gxh5 3.Rd2 e5 > +- (1.58) Depth: 6/26 00:00:00 219kN >1.b5 Rc8 2.hxg6 fxg6 3.Rd2 e5 4.Rh4 Qb7 > +- (1.48) Depth: 7/26 00:00:01 329kN >1.b5 Rc8 2.Rh4 Qb7 3.Rd2 e5 4.Nd5 Nxd5 5.Qxh7+ Kf8 6.Rxd5 > +- (1.45) Depth: 8/30 00:00:01 683kN >1.Rh4 Qa7 2.b5 Rc8 3.Rd2 e5 4.Nd5 Nxd5 5.Qxh7+ Kf8 6.Rxd5 > +- (1.49) Depth: 8/30 00:00:01 921kN >1.Rh4 Qa7 2.b5 Rc8 3.Rd2 Qb7 4.hxg6 fxg6 5.Rh3 e5 > +- (1.49) Depth: 9/32 00:00:03 1859kN >1.Rh4 Qa7 2.b5 Rc8 3.Rd2 Qb7 4.a4 e5 5.Nd5 Nxd5 6.Qxh7+ Kf8 7.Rxd5 > +- (1.45) Depth: 10/40 00:00:06 3295kN >1.Rh4 Qa7 2.b5 Rc8 3.Rd2 Qb7 4.a4 Rc5 5.hxg6 fxg6 6.Rh3 e5 > +- (1.41) Depth: 11/40 00:00:12 7239kN >1.Bd3 axb4 2.axb4 Bc6 3.Bc2 Qc8 4.Bb3 Nc7 5.Rf3 Nce8 6.Ra1 Rc7 > +- (1.57) Depth: 11/40 00:00:30 17310kN >1.Bd3 axb4 2.axb4 Bc6 3.Bc2 Qc8 4.Bb3 Nc7 5.Rf3 Nce8 6.Ra1 Rc7 7.hxg6 hxg6 > +- (1.57) Depth: 12/42 00:00:34 20005kN >1.Bd3 axb4 2.axb4 Bc6 3.Bc2 Bb7 4.e5 dxe5 5.Rxd8 Qxd8 6.Nxh7 Nxh7 7.hxg6 fxg6 >8.Qxg6+ Rg7 9.Qxe6+ Kf8 10.Rxh7 Rxg2+ 11.Kf1 > +- (1.81) Depth: 13/46 00:00:52 31002kN >1.Bd3 axb4 2.axb4 Bc6 3.Bc2 Bb7 4.e5 dxe5 5.Rxd8 Qxd8 6.Nxh7 Nxh7 7.hxg6 fxg6 >8.Qxg6+ Rg7 9.Qxe6+ Kf8 10.Rxh7 Rxg2+ 11.Kf1 > +- (1.81) Depth: 14/50 00:01:10 42884kN >1.Bd3 axb4 2.axb4 Bc6 3.Bc2 Bb7 4.e5 dxe5 5.Rxd8 Qxd8 6.Nxh7 Nxh7 7.hxg6 fxg6 >8.Qxg6+ Rg7 9.Qxe6+ Kf8 10.Rxh7 Rxg2+ 11.Kf1 > +- (1.81) Depth: 15/52 00:01:48 67203kN > >(, 06.10.2005) > > >Uri I think you got the computation incorrectly. Thinker is not 32 times faster than Fruit. In the Thinker output, you can see that it only does something like 700Knps, while in your output, Fruit does around 600Knps. Thinker does: 4246 29903901, which is 29903901 nodes in 42.46 secs. Fruit does: 00:01:48 67203kN, which is 67203000 nodes in 108 secs.
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.