Author: Chessfun
Date: 20:55:58 01/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2000 at 23:45:09, Christophe Theron wrote: >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? Correct. > >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. > I noticed that too, yet with Genius that is a little more extreme. Though I must admit I like these Genius programs I am a little surprized they didn't do better rating wise. > > >>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. >>2 >>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 >00:020:05.7 -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 >00:042:22.5 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. > > No it is clear enough 27.9 secs, I wouldn't have believed it would be that fast. So you got to 15 ply in only 4,300,000 positions, funny CM didn't see it I had that at 43,000,000. Thanks. > > 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.