Perft(14) estimates thread

[ibid]

Smallest perft(10) sub-result (?)
[d]rnbqkbnr/pp1pp1pp/2p2p2/8/8/2P2P2/PP1PP1PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3[/d]

That is not the smallest. This is smaller:
[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 4 3[/d]

I suppose in principle something like this wins:
[d]rnb1kbnr/pppp1ppp/4p3/8/5PPq/8/PPPPP2P/RNBQKBNR w KQkq -[/d]
A somewhat more reasonable position:
[d]rnb1kbnr/pppp1ppp/4p3/8/5P1q/8/PPPPP1PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq -[/d]
has a perft(10) of 17,401,317,066,205. I wonder at what point the extra moves from the active black queen become more important than the missing ply due to the check?

[petero2]

My perft(14) calculation is now finished and the result is:

61,885,021,521,585,529,237

It seems reasonable given earlier estimates, but obviously needs independent verification.

[Ajedrecista]

Hello Peter:

My perft(14) calculation is now finished and the result is:

61,885,021,521,585,529,237

It seems reasonable given earlier estimates, but obviously needs independent verification.

Congratulations for this huge task!

There are some estimates, some of them quite old:

Code: Select all

61,803,489,628,662,504,195 by Joshua Haglund.

61,865,545,676,422,373,910 by Matthew R. Brades. 

6.187e+19 by François Labelle.

6.18847822079403e+19 by Peter Österlund. 

61,886,459,822,115,294,738 by myself. 

6.188925e+19 by H.G.Muller.

6.18986e+19 by Reinhard Scharnagl.

If I am not wrong, these are the relative errors err_i = [estimate_i/Perft(14) - 1] rounding up to 0.0001%:

Code: Select all

    Joshua Haglund's estimate ~ Perft(14) - 0.1317 % ; |err| ~ 1/(759.03)

  Matthew R. Brades' estimate ~ Perft(14) - 0.0315 % ; |err| ~ 1/(3177.53)

  François Labelle's estimate ~ Perft(14) - 0.0243 % ; |err| ~ 1/(4119.76)

   Peter Österlund's estimate ~ Perft(14) - 0.0004 % ; |err| ~ 1/(258593.79)

                  My estimate ~ Perft(14) + 0.0023 % ; |err| ~ 1/(43026.49)

        H.G.Muller's estimate ~ Perft(14) + 0.0068 % ; |err| ~ 1/(14635.29)

Reinhard Scharnagl's estimate ~ Perft(14) + 0.0219 % ; |err| ~ 1/(4557.58)

I hope no typos.

I expect to be wrong in less than 0.01% this time. It is too soon but I think that Peter's estimate is the best one, followed by my own estimate.

I was far below 0.01 % of relative error! But I rightly wrote that Peter's estimate would be the closest one. Indeed it is superb... once again, just like with his Perft(13) estimate. Well done!

Waiting for independent verification... it will take a while.

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

[sje]

My perft(14) calculation is now finished and the result is:

61,885,021,521,585,529,237

Congratulations. Now we need the 400 draft 12 results for a check. These should be done on a different machine by a different party with a different algorithm.

[jhaglund]

Hello Peter:

My perft(14) calculation is now finished and the result is:

61,885,021,521,585,529,237

It seems reasonable given earlier estimates, but obviously needs independent verification.

Congratulations for this huge task!

There are some estimates, some of them quite old:

Code: Select all

61,803,489,628,662,504,195 by Joshua Haglund.

61,865,545,676,422,373,910 by Matthew R. Brades. 

6.187e+19 by François Labelle.

6.18847822079403e+19 by Peter Österlund. 

61,886,459,822,115,294,738 by myself. 

6.188925e+19 by H.G.Muller.

6.18986e+19 by Reinhard Scharnagl.

If I am not wrong, these are the relative errors err_i = [estimate_i/Perft(14) - 1] rounding up to 0.0001%:

Code: Select all

    Joshua Haglund's estimate ~ Perft(14) - 0.1317 % ; |err| ~ 1/(759.03)

  Matthew R. Brades' estimate ~ Perft(14) - 0.0315 % ; |err| ~ 1/(3177.53)

  François Labelle's estimate ~ Perft(14) - 0.0243 % ; |err| ~ 1/(4119.76)

   Peter Österlund's estimate ~ Perft(14) - 0.0004 % ; |err| ~ 1/(258593.79)

                  My estimate ~ Perft(14) + 0.0023 % ; |err| ~ 1/(43026.49)

        H.G.Muller's estimate ~ Perft(14) + 0.0068 % ; |err| ~ 1/(14635.29)

Reinhard Scharnagl's estimate ~ Perft(14) + 0.0219 % ; |err| ~ 1/(4557.58)

I hope no typos.

I expect to be wrong in less than 0.01% this time. It is too soon but I think that Peter's estimate is the best one, followed by my own estimate.

I was far below 0.01 % of relative error! But I rightly wrote that Peter's estimate would be the closest one. Indeed it is superb... once again, just like with his Perft(13) estimate. Well done!

Waiting for independent verification... it will take a while.

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

You guys are too quick, I didn't get time to update my prediction from, Aug 20, 2011.

Good work! Are we looking into Peftf(15) ?

[sje]

My perft(14) calculation is now finished and the result is:

61,885,021,521,585,529,237

Congratulations. Now we need the 400 draft 12 results for a check. These should be done on a different machine by a different party with a different algorithm.

I'll contribute:
[d]rnbqkbnr/ppppp1pp/5p2/8/8/5P2/PPPPP1PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 2[/d]

Code: Select all

Depth: 12   Count: 32,805,467,443,838,610   Elapsed: 526411  (6.23192e+10 Hz / 1.60464e-11 s)