100 easy perft(7) test positions

sje · Post by **sje** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:03 pm

100 easy perft(7) test positions

The Perft(14) project is now tracking the easiest (i.e., minimal perft(7) count) one hundred positions of the 96,400,068 position unique(7) set. (Checkmate positions are excluded.) These are posted at the link https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/316 ... 4/EasyGuys whose contents will be updated regularly.

The least of the least so far is:
[d]rnbQkbnr/3ppppp/p1p5/8/8/2P5/PP1PPPPP/RNB1KBNR b KQkq - 0 4[/d]
Which has a perft(7) count of only 67,820,026.

----

As mentioned before, the hardest 100 positions can be found at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/316 ... /ToughGuys

Kotlov · Post by **Kotlov** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:19 pm

How a practical use of this?

Auberon · Post by **Auberon** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:30 pm

Kotlov wrote:How a practical use of this?

Using Steven Edwards (OP) his amazing test cases, you can verify the correctness of your move generation.

Perft and Perft Results are briefly but well explained here and here respectively.

Kotlov · Post by **Kotlov** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:11 pm

Auberon wrote:
Kotlov wrote:How a practical use of this?
Using Steven Edwards (OP) his amazing test cases, you can verify the correctness of your move generation.

Perft and Perft Results are briefly but well explained here and here respectively.

I mean how can I use exactly these positions. What are the advantages (or disadvantages) of positions with a minimum number of nodes on other positions for the test move generation?

Robert Pope · Post by **Robert Pope** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:11 pm

I would say it's more a curiosity than anything.

sje · Post by **sje** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:51 am

I have refreshed the contents of a couple of Symbolic's log file links which were posted earlier. For easier web browser viewing, I have removed the ANSI color escape sequences.

The first is Symbolic doing perft(n) (n=7..10):
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/316 ... 8p9p10.log

The second is Symbolic doing perft(11):
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/316 ... es/p11.log

There have been some minor speed improvements for a total of about a five percent rate increase.

----

When I first calculated perft(7) ca. 1987, it took about 36 hours; now it takes less than a second. When I first calculated perft(10) ca. 2002, it took about two weeks; now it takes about 21 minutes.

Perft(11) now takes about 4 hours and 45 minutes.

And when running without bulk counting nor transposition table assistance, Symbolic can run perft() on a complex position (BusyFEN) at the rate of about 42 million nodes per second.

----

The essentials of Symbolic's multithreaded, semaphore-moderated job/accumulator path enumeration scheme are unchanged. That's good, because it helps prove the validity of Symbolic's upcoming multithreaded, semaphore-moderated job/pallet α/β search scheme which should make all other searches turn green with envy.

----

For those who want more than just a hundred or so perft(7) test positions, here are the first ten million of them from the unique(7) set:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/316 ... 000.sum.gz
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/316 ... 001.sum.gz
...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/316 ... 099.sum.gz

100 easy perft(7) test positions

100 easy perft(7) test positions

Re: 100 easy perft(7) test positions

Re: 100 easy perft(7) test positions

Re: 100 easy perft(7) test positions

Re: 100 easy perft(7) test positions

And a couple of refreshed log files