Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 20:45:09 01/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2000 at 22:52:28, Chessfun wrote:
>On January 08, 2000 at 21:38:11, Chessfun wrote:
>
>>On January 08, 2000 at 18:20:18, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>
>>>On January 08, 2000 at 13:20:12, Chessfun wrote:
>>>
>>>>On January 08, 2000 at 12:17:51, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snipped>
>>>>
>>>>>I see that this position raises very little interest, or maybe top programs are
>>>>>not able to solve it? Actually I know that Genius5 solves it pretty fast (maybe
>>>>>faster than Tiger, I'm not sure).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Christophe
>>>>
>>>>To answer the first post. I don't have a favorite program you won't
>>>>send it to me !!.
>>>>
>>>>Genius 5. Takes 3 mins 25 secs on Cel 433 to post a + score for 1. f6.
>>>>
>>>>Genius 6. Takes 4 mins 12 secs to post a + score for 1. f6.
>>>>It looks at 1. f6. for first 44 secs showing - then switches to Kxg2
>>>>before going back to 1. f6.
>>>>
>>>>CM6K default no solve after 12 min 19 secs 42,000,000 nodes.
>>>>
>>>>Hiarcs 7.32 Looks at 1. f6. for first up to first 2 mins showing -
>>>>then switches to Kxg2 before I gave up at depth 15/30 approx 7 mins
>>>>still showing Kxg2.
>>>>
>>>>Fritz 6 No luck after 5 mins 1. Kxg2.
>>>>
>>>>I had tried this on other softwares, Tiger is the fastest I have heard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>I did not expect Tiger to be the fastest.
>>>
>>>How much hash tables have you used? This position is rather sensitive to the
>>>amount of hash table (it's natural as it is an endgame with reduced material).
>>>
>>Genius 5 used default 4mb
>>Genius 6 used default 8mb
>>Hiarcs 7.32 I used 8 mb
>>Fritz 6 I used 16 mb it eats *HASH*
>>CM36K set up at 16 mb
>>
>>>Actually I have just realized that Tiger solves it faster with 8Mb hash: 39
>>>seconds with 8Mb, 1m12s with 16Mb, and 28s with 32Mb hash tables (new record?).
>>>The 16Mb result is an accident, it happens from time to time. Results on a K6-
>>>450MHz.
>>
>>I will try later this evening differing hash amounts.
>>>
>>>Genius5 DOS is handicapped as the version I have, which was provided together
>>>with G5 Windows, cannot use more 384Kb.
>>>
>>>I suppose you have tried Genius5 Windows with a decent amount of hash tables?
>>>
>>Yes it is Genius 5 windows version hash default is 4096.
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>Thanks.
>
>Cel 433
>Genius 5. 2kb hash = 1.f6 switches again to Kxg2 after 44 secs then solves
>1.f6 posting + score after 3 min 48 secs.
>Genius 5. 4kb hash = 1.f6 switches again to Kxg2 after 40 secs then solves
>1.f6 posting + score after 3 min 25 secs.
>Genius 5. 8kb hash = 1.f6 switches again to kxg2 after 1 min 19 secs solves
>1.f6 posting + score after 4 min 29 secs.
>Genuis 5. 16kb hash = 1.f6 switches again to kxg2 after 59 secs then solves
>1.f6 posting + score after 3 min 25 secs.
You mean Mb, not Kb, I presume?
A very funny thing: Genius has almost the same problem than Tiger: at one point
increasing the hash table size gives a longer solution time. Then increasing
further yields again a better result.
>Genius 6 times are almost identical.
>
>The other engines I think it is pointless exercise !.
>I just try one other engine MCP8 8kb hash = No solve after 18 mins.
>
>Tiger posts a + at 28 secs without going back? Genius picks 1. f6 always
>but not with a + score which is when it switches to Kxg2 before switching back.
>Trouble comes for Genius at depth 12/24 when it sees Kxg2 as better.
>
>I'll trade yer two Genius's for a Tiger !! LOL.
>Thanks.
Here is the output from the Rebel-Tiger (K6-2 450MHz, 32Mb hash tables):
00:00:00.1 4.12 9 60006 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kg3 a4 h5 f6 gxf6 a5
00:00:00.4 1.12 9 83505 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kg3 c6 dxc6 f6 gxf6 a4 c5
00:00:00.3 -0.44 10 123820 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kg3 c6 dxc6 dxc6 Kf4 a4 Ke4
Kxg2 h5
00:00:01.8 -1.33 11 213308 f6
00:00:01.5 -1.16 11 263647 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg4 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke4
a5 Kxd5
00:00:02.1 -1.15 11 356087 c6
00:00:02.4 -1.14 11 445570 d6
00:00:03.7 -0.28 11 478497 d6 cxd6 Kxg2 Kg4 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kxf5 a4 Ke5
a5 Kd5
00:00:04.7 -1.17 12 611167 f6
00:00:04.1 -0.20 12 699197 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg4 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke4
d6 cxd6 a5
00:00:05.7 -0.19 12 766013 Kxg2
00:00:05.3 0.62 12 812882 Kxg2
00:00:06.4 4.16 12 1006462 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf6 d6 cxd6 a4 dxc5
a5 c4 Kf3
00:00:06.0 4.16 13 1006467 Kxg2 Kg5
00:00:10.5 1.44 14 1609096 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf6 a4 Ke7 a5 Kd8
a6 Kc8 Kh3 h6 Kg3
00:00:16.5 1.21 15 2565155 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf6 a4 Ke7 a5 Kd8
c6 dxc6 dxc6 Kc8
00:00:27.9 1.22 15 4300739 f6
00:00:37.3 2.34 15 6108693 f6
00:00:43.0 2.33 15 6946271 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg4 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke4
d6 cxd6 c6 dxc6 a5 Kd5
00:01:14.9 3.23 16 12181241 f6
00:01:56.7 5.33 16 19201142 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg4 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke4
d6 cxd6 c6 dxc6 a5 c5 a6
00:02:29.3 5.33 17 24464726 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg4
00:04:22.5 5.31 18 43205717 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke4
d6 cxd6 c6 dxc6 a5 c5
00:09:45.2 5.00 19 96545193 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke5
d6 cxd6 c6 dxc6 a5 c5 a6 c4 a7 c3
00:20:04.9 5.00 19 196144774 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke5
d6 cxd6 c6 dxc6 a5 c5 a6 c4 a7 c3
I know this is not easy to read, but first column is time, second is score,
third is ply-depth, fourth is number of positions evaluated, and then you have
the best line.
I have stopped the program exactly after 20 minutes, 4 seconds, 9 tenths. The
last line just repeats the last best line, as you see.
So Tiger would play f6 very quickly, without knowing exactly why, then it would
play Kxg2, then sees that this is not as good as expected and would eventually
play f6 in about 28 seconds without changing his mind in 20 minutes.
Christophe
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.