mmt Vs. Ovyron (G4 D5 BG2)

[jp]

BTW, have you updated Stockfish to include this patch?

Did you goto the link Zullil posted and read it? If not you should. If no one really cared why would they go to the trouble of testing SF against a large set of known mating positions?

Oh, you mean the SF github link?

(Aside to everyone: it'd be a lot easier to read and understand, if posters' quotes just kept to the relevant part of the quote, cutting out everything else. Often on this forum, people just quote whole chains of half a dozen or more previous posts in their entirety, making it barely readable. On other forums, you get warned by mods and even banned for doing that.)

Okay, I'm looking at it... I mean, it shows that one bug has been picked up, which doesn't really tell me how likely it is that all bugs will be picked up. Note: when we discuss how much one piece of code can be trusted, or what it really means, that doesn't mean we believe in general the code contains hordes of serious bugs.


I must say, too, when I wrote (and read) about "people" I was thinking more about those who post in the Fishcooking Google Group (because that was in the chain I was replying to, copied below) than about people actively contributing to SF development. (That's another reason why I initially didn't know what you meant by "the link Zullil posted".)

Maybe just ask politely at https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobi ... ishcooking ?

When people produce games to test the engine they automatically test for mate claims.

(How actually does one post in Google Groups?)

[Alayan]

(Aside to everyone: it'd be a lot easier to read and understand, if posters' quotes just kept to the relevant part of the quote, cutting out everything else. Often on this forum, people just quote whole chains of half a dozen or more previous posts in their entirety, making it barely readable. On other forums, you get warned by mods and even banned for doing that.)

I hate it so much when people chain-quote several messages for no reason.

[zullil]

Now I feel like a cheater

I guess I should have put a time limit on it, but at the time I didn't envision it taking nearly this long. I wouldn't worry about cheating too much. Unless they start giving you moves I'm good with it. Zullil's mate is probably wrong anyway.
...
Regards,

Zenmastur

As I said, I did nothing. If mate-in-29 is wrong then Stockfish is to blame.

Mate-in-28 now, by the way...

Stockfish-dev has held at mate-in-28 for eleven hours now. Depth 100. Will be curious to learn what others have gotten by carefully "guiding" an engine.

Carefully "guiding" and engine during a mate search isn't going to gain you much. There is no way "guiding" an engine can change the length of mate the position contains. The best you can hope for is to speed the search up. The truth be told even speeding the search up is going to be difficult for a human. This is why Ovyron hates this test so much. It's almost purely a hardware test. If you have big hardware and lots of memory you will spend less time on problems like this.

Yes, I was being facetious about "guiding" here. BTW, Stockfish-dev has held onto mate-in-28. Now at depth 114.

[Ovyron]

Carefully "guiding" and engine during a mate search isn't going to gain you much. There is no way "guiding" an engine can change the length of mate the position contains.

Well, that's not true, the worst case was that position where Stockfish at Depth 70 was still showing a mate in 19 as fastest, and it took it 20 minutes to reach it, and would take it another 20 minutes to reach Depth 71, and not improve the mate as much because it was missing white's optimal attack.

I make white's optimal attack on the board and then in less than 20 seconds it shows rightfully a mate in 9. I have no idea how long it'd have taken to find this mate in 9 from the root, but from the looks of it, at least 2000 minutes...

So I don't need to wait that long. Of course, I had needed to find this faster mate in advance by myself, forcing my own white moves instead of those from any engine, but even a trained monkey could do that.

I estimate that I'll solve this in some square root of the time it'd have taken if I just let Stockfish sitting at the root to solve the position to mate, what I didn't expect was the square root to still be a really long while...

[zullil]

Well, that's not true, the worst case was that position where Stockfish at Depth 70 was still showing a mate in 19 as fastest, and it took it 20 minutes to reach it, and would take it another 20 minutes to reach Depth 71, and not improve the mate as much because it was missing white's optimal attack.

I make white's optimal attack on the board and then in less than 20 seconds it shows rightfully a mate in 9. I have no idea how long it'd have taken to find this mate in 9 from the root, but from the looks of it, at least 2000 minutes...

Please post this position. I must admit I'm skeptical of almost everything you claim. Mostly because you are never able/willing to post evidence. Due to "secrecy", or whatever.

[Ovyron]

I didn't keep it, it was saved to the engine's learn file so from the distance the engine would know to prune the line and speed up the solving of ...Ke6, and that was it.

It's an anecdote, I don't really care if people believe me or not because I know it happened

[Alayan]

From experience, when the optimal mating move is to push a pawn that is on 2nd rank to the 4th rank ; it's easy to try out and find as a human, but Stockfish won't bother with it for a long time.

[zullil]

I didn't keep it, it was saved to the engine's learn file so from the distance the engine would know to prune the line and speed up the solving of ...Ke6, and that was it.

It's an anecdote, I don't really care if people believe me or not because I know it happened

Well, there certainly are very simple mate problems that Stockfish still can't handle in reasonable time. For example, Stockfish-dev still struggles with this oldie, which I attribute to Bernhard Bauer from this forum:

[d]rk6/p1r3p1/P3B1Kp/1p2B3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

info depth 51 seldepth 70 multipv 1 score cp -32 nodes 2713568835 nps 2570122 hashfull 1000 tbhits 0 time 1055813 pv e6d5 b8c8 d5a8 c7c4 e5g7 c4a4 a8b7 c8d7 g6h6 b5b4 h6g5 b4b3 b7f3 a4a6 g5f4 d7d6 g7d4 a6a2 f4e3 a7a5 e3d3 a5a4 d3c4 a2c2 c4b4 b3b2 d4b2 c2b2 b4a4 b2b6 f3e2 d6c6 e2d1 c6d5 a4a3 d5c4 d1e2 c4c3 a3a4 b6b4 a4a5 b4b8 e2b5 c3d4 b5e2 d4c5 a5a4 b8b7 e2f3 b7b4 a4a5 b4b1 a5a4 c5d4 f3e2 d4e5 e2d3 b1d1 d3e2 d1e1

[drewdrew]

I didn't keep it, it was saved to the engine's learn file so from the distance the engine would know to prune the line and speed up the solving of ...Ke6, and that was it.

It's an anecdote, I don't really care if people believe me or not because I know it happened

Well, there certainly are very simple mate problems that Stockfish still can't handle in reasonable time. For example, Stockfish-dev still struggles with this oldie, which I attribute to Bernhard Bauer from this forum:

[d]rk6/p1r3p1/P3B1Kp/1p2B3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

info depth 51 seldepth 70 multipv 1 score cp -32 nodes 2713568835 nps 2570122 hashfull 1000 tbhits 0 time 1055813 pv e6d5 b8c8 d5a8 c7c4 e5g7 c4a4 a8b7 c8d7 g6h6 b5b4 h6g5 b4b3 b7f3 a4a6 g5f4 d7d6 g7d4 a6a2 f4e3 a7a5 e3d3 a5a4 d3c4 a2c2 c4b4 b3b2 d4b2 c2b2 b4a4 b2b6 f3e2 d6c6 e2d1 c6d5 a4a3 d5c4 d1e2 c4c3 a3a4 b6b4 a4a5 b4b8 e2b5 c3d4 b5e2 d4c5 a5a4 b8b7 e2f3 b7b4 a4a5 b4b1 a5a4 c5d4 f3e2 d4e5 e2d3 b1d1 d3e2 d1e1

With a higher number of threads, SF appears to find this reasonably easily though the depth at which it first finds it seems to vary quite a bit from run to run:
info depth 47 seldepth 17 multipv 1 score mate 5 nodes 984081754 nps 469953082 hashfull 22 tbhits 17322204 time 2094 pv e6d7 b5b4 g6f7 b4b3 f7e8 h6h5 e8d8 g7g6 e5c7

[zullil]

I didn't keep it, it was saved to the engine's learn file so from the distance the engine would know to prune the line and speed up the solving of ...Ke6, and that was it.

It's an anecdote, I don't really care if people believe me or not because I know it happened

Well, there certainly are very simple mate problems that Stockfish still can't handle in reasonable time. For example, Stockfish-dev still struggles with this oldie, which I attribute to Bernhard Bauer from this forum:

[d]rk6/p1r3p1/P3B1Kp/1p2B3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

info depth 51 seldepth 70 multipv 1 score cp -32 nodes 2713568835 nps 2570122 hashfull 1000 tbhits 0 time 1055813 pv e6d5 b8c8 d5a8 c7c4 e5g7 c4a4 a8b7 c8d7 g6h6 b5b4 h6g5 b4b3 b7f3 a4a6 g5f4 d7d6 g7d4 a6a2 f4e3 a7a5 e3d3 a5a4 d3c4 a2c2 c4b4 b3b2 d4b2 c2b2 b4a4 b2b6 f3e2 d6c6 e2d1 c6d5 a4a3 d5c4 d1e2 c4c3 a3a4 b6b4 a4a5 b4b8 e2b5 c3d4 b5e2 d4c5 a5a4 b8b7 e2f3 b7b4 a4a5 b4b1 a5a4 c5d4 f3e2 d4e5 e2d3 b1d1 d3e2 d1e1

With a higher number of threads, SF appears to find this reasonably easily though the depth at which it first finds it seems to vary quite a bit from run to run:
info depth 47 seldepth 17 multipv 1 score mate 5 nodes 984081754 nps 469953082 hashfull 22 tbhits 17322204 time 2094 pv e6d7 b5b4 g6f7 b4b3 f7e8 h6h5 e8d8 g7g6 e5c7

I'm intentionally using default settings. In particular, one thread (deterministic) search. Still can't find mate-in-five ...

info depth 60 seldepth 79 multipv 1 score cp -32 nodes 10948636149 nps 2661592 hashfull 1000 tbhits 0 time 4113566 pv e6d5 b8c8 d5a8 c7c4 e5g7 b5b4 a8d5 c4c5 d5f3 c5a5 g6h6 c8d7 h6g6 a5a6 g6g5 a6a2 g5f4 d7d6 g7f8 d6c7 f8c5 b4b3 c5d4 a7a5 f4e3 c7d6 e3d3 a2h2 d3c4 h2h4 f3d1 a5a4 c4c3 b3b2 d1c2 a4a3 d4g7 d6d5 c3b3 h4h1 g7b2 a3b2 b3b2 d5c4 c2g6 h1h2 b2a3 h2f2 g6e8 c4c3 a3a4 f2e2 e8g6 e2e6 g6f7 e6b6 a4a5 b6b8 f7e6 c3d4 a5a4 b8b6 e6f5 b6b2 a4a5 b2b8 f5h3 d4e3 a5a4 e3f2 h3e6

You're using like 200 threads?