Since your search found mate-in-5 at depth 43, I'm assuming that you used endgame tables, multiple search threads, and perhaps you also had some good SMP luck. Since your search took less than 7 seconds, I'm assuming that you are using a very fast (overclocked?) processor. If I'm wrong about this, then something very interesting has occurred.
Since your search found mate-in-5 at depth 43, I'm assuming that you used endgame tables, multiple search threads, and perhaps you also had some good SMP luck. Since your search took less than 7 seconds, I'm assuming that you are using a very fast (overclocked?) processor. If I'm wrong about this, then something very interesting has occurred.
Your right about all except it being SMP luck. I tried it several times with the same basic results. I guess I should have read the entire thread before I posted. I didn't I just skimmed a few of the posts and then tested the position a few time and then posted the results. I didn't catch the single thread part of the lack of EGTBs.
I suppose I could run it again, but my machine is busy. Maybe later today.
Regards,
Zenmastur
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Zenmastur wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:36 pm
Your right about all except it being SMP luck. I tried it several times with the same basic results. I guess I should have read the entire thread before I posted. I didn't I just skimmed a few of the posts and then tested the position a few time and then posted the results. I didn't catch the single thread part of the lack of EGTBs.
I suppose I could run it again, but my machine is busy. Maybe later today.
Regards,
Zenmastur
To test if I might have been especially unlucky, I just did five searches using multiple threads and 6-man Syzygy tables. Never got mate-in-5 at a depth below 55. So perhaps your 43 was an outlier, not that it matters much either way.
But the point is---don't try to find this mate-in-5 using default settings. It will take a long, long time.
zullil wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:26 pm
There are many draws in computer chess because chess is a theoretical draw and engines, unlike humans, make very few horrific errors. Humans suck at chess. We've sucked at it long enough that the chess literature is full of "brilliant" wins (i.e., horrific blunder-filled losses).
If chess engines had been invented in time, humans might have realized how much they sucked at chess and stopped playing altogether.
When you see someone more successful than you, do you immediately think about killing yourself? I recommend visiting a doctor.
Single thread no TB's seems like you are right, but as soon as I add multi-pV=2 while it's searching it finds it in less than 10 msecs.
I think someone should play with internal settings of SF to see whats up with this very odd behavior. I've notices Multi-PV fixes a lot of things almost as soon as it's tried. Maybe this should be done internally at the beginning of every search.
Regards,
Zenmastur
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
zullil wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:26 pm
There are many draws in computer chess because chess is a theoretical draw and engines, unlike humans, make very few horrific errors. Humans suck at chess. We've sucked at it long enough that the chess literature is full of "brilliant" wins (i.e., horrific blunder-filled losses).
If chess engines had been invented in time, humans might have realized how much they sucked at chess and stopped playing altogether.
When you see someone more successful than you, do you immediately think about killing yourself? I recommend visiting a doctor.
No, and I enjoy playing chess. I just know that humans suck at it.
zullil wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:26 pm
There are many draws in computer chess because chess is a theoretical draw and engines, unlike humans, make very few horrific errors. Humans suck at chess. We've sucked at it long enough that the chess literature is full of "brilliant" wins (i.e., horrific blunder-filled losses).
If chess engines had been invented in time, humans might have realized how much they sucked at chess and stopped playing altogether.
When you see someone more successful than you, do you immediately think about killing yourself? I recommend visiting a doctor.
No, and I enjoy playing chess. I just know that humans suck at it.
zullil wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:26 pm
There are many draws in computer chess because chess is a theoretical draw and engines, unlike humans, make very few horrific errors. Humans suck at chess. We've sucked at it long enough that the chess literature is full of "brilliant" wins (i.e., horrific blunder-filled losses).
If chess engines had been invented in time, humans might have realized how much they sucked at chess and stopped playing altogether.
When you see someone more successful than you, do you immediately think about killing yourself? I recommend visiting a doctor.
No, and I enjoy playing chess. I just know that humans suck at it.
Why haven't you stopped playing then?
Clearly you've taken my statement much more seriously than I intended. I included the little to signal that the statement should be considered (an attempt at) humor.
If I'm wrong about this, then something very interesting has occurred.
