Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 13:14:16 12/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2005 at 04:00:30, Mig Greengard wrote: >[D]3n3k/bp3pp1/8/8/R1Q2R2/6p1/B2p1PP1/q1rn2K1 w - - 0 1 > >Plokhodnikov, 1971 > >Was somewhat surprised to find that most engines need a while to solve this >puzzle since every move is a check. More than a minute, over five minutes in >some cases. I think Toga II 1.1 was the fastest, solving it on my Athlon 64 3800 >in around 40 seconds. (The original composition was given as mate in 21, but the >comps find a faster way.) [D]3n3k/bp3pp1/8/8/R1Q2R2/6p1/B2p1PP1/q1rn2K1 w - - 0 1 Analysis by Hiarcs 10 using 512MB Hash and A64 2.85GHz 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Rg4+ Kh7 7.Qh4+ Kg8 8.Qd8+ Kh7 = (0.00) Depth: 8/32 00:00:00 164kN 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Rg4+ Kh7 7.Qh4+ Kg8 8.Qd8+ Kh7 = (0.00) Depth: 8/32 00:00:00 296kN 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Rg4+ Kh7 7.Qh4+ Kg8 8.Qd8+ Kh7 = (0.00) Depth: 9/37 00:00:01 903kN 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Rg4+ Kh7 7.Qh4+ Kg8 8.Qd8+ Kh7 = (0.00) Depth: 10/39 00:00:03 2418kN 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Rg4+ Kh7 7.Qh4+ Kg8 8.Qd8+ Kh7 = (0.00) Depth: 11/41 00:00:08 6007kN 1.Rh4+ +- (#19) Depth: 12/46 00:00:12 8295kN 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Qd3+ f5 7.Qxg3+ Kf6 8.Qd6+ Kg5 9.Rh5+ Kxh5 10.Bf7+ Kg5 11.Qg3+ Kf6 12.Qg6+ Ke5 13.Qe6+ Kf4 14.g3+ Kg4 15.Qg6+ Kf3 16.Qxf5+ +- (#19) Depth: 12/46 00:00:18 12553kN 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Qd3+ f5 7.Qxg3+ Kf6 8.Qd6+ Kg5 9.Rh5+ Kxh5 10.Bf7+ Kg5 11.Qg3+ Kf6 12.Qg6+ Ke5 13.Qe6+ Kf4 14.g3+ Kg4 15.Qg6+ Kf3 16.Qxf5+ +- (#19) Depth: 13/46 00:00:27 19711kN 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Qd3+ f5 7.Qxg3+ Kf6 8.Qd6+ Kg5 9.Rh5+ Kxh5 10.Bf7+ Kg5 11.Qg3+ Kf6 12.Qg6+ Ke5 13.Qe6+ Kf4 14.g3+ Kg4 15.Qg6+ Kf3 16.Qxf5+ +- (#19) Depth: 14/46 00:00:33 23648kN 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Qd3+ f5 7.Qxg3+ Kf6 8.Qd6+ Kg5 9.Rh5+ Kxh5 10.Bf7+ Kg5 11.Qg3+ Kf6 12.Qg6+ Ke5 13.Qe6+ Kf4 14.g3+ Kg4 15.Qg6+ Kf3 16.Qxf5+ +- (#19) Depth: 15/46 00:00:48 34646kN 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Qd3+ f5 7.Qxg3+ Kf6 8.Qd6+ Kg5 9.Rh5+ Kxh5 10.Bf7+ Kg5 11.Qg3+ Kf6 12.Qg6+ Ke5 13.Qe6+ Kf4 14.g3+ Kg4 15.Qg6+ Kf3 16.Qxf5+ +- (#19) Depth: 16/46 00:00:54 39547kN 1.Rh4+ Kg8 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Qh4+ Kg8 4.Qxd8+ Kh7 5.Rh4+ Kg6 6.Qd3+ f5 7.Qxg3+ Kf6 8.Qd6+ Kg5 9.Rh5+ Kxh5 10.Bf7+ Kg5 11.Qg3+ Kf6 12.Qg6+ Ke5 13.Qe6+ Kf4 14.g3+ Kg4 15.Qg6+ Kf3 16.Qxf5+ +- (#19) Depth: 17/46 00:01:02 47046kN (elc, A64 01.12.2005) -elc. > >I'm not an unreserved fan of this engine yet, but it is intriguing and well >worth a look beyond its scores against other programs (yes, there is such a >thing). It certainly doesn't seem worse than the other top programs. Since 99% >of my program usage is as an analytical assistant for GM games for reports and >newsletters, I mostly want fast tactics as I favor my own positional eval. In >this I don't find Toga better than Junior 9, inferior in most cases when it >comes to suggesting interesting tactical lines, Junior's specialty. > >It is quite good in endgames for an engine despite apparently not accessing EGTB >in the search. Does its cousin Fruit 2.2 do this? Probably not particularly >relevant in play but it's essential for better endgame analysis. (e.g. >Minasian-van Wely from the first round in the FIDE World Cup the other day. Toga >has no idea that endgame is totally drawn, even when it's down to bishops.) > >Like many players I know, I have my own informal test suite I use to evaluate >both new programs and new hardware. They are mostly games I have annotated >deeply (and/or have been so annotated by others) and know very well, and it's >useful to see if new engines find the best moves or see the value of certain >paradoxical ideas. And also how long it takes, of course, since speed is of the >essence in a working environment. I've found the latest editions of Kasparov's >"My Great Predecessors" books handy for this because he and his team also >thoroughly computer-check lines. (Famously not so well in Vol. 1.) This avoids >annoying refutations and Garry is also more interested in pointing out good >moves that aren't just flashy tactics a computer finds instantly. A good test >suite can be made just by thumbing through the books and looking for exclam >moves. > >What are the most highly recommended positional test suites in circulation, btw?
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.