JVMerlino wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:00 pm
My engine, rated about 2600, with 8 cores, needed 4 minutes and 26 seconds to announce Mate in 10 with Rxb6, searching almost 7.9B nodes.
21 32748 44598 7,881,802,951 b4b6 c7b6 (17672 KNPS)(Mate in 10)
Can you specify the metrics in your generic evaluation function?
Chessnut1071 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 2:34 pm[fen]3kNr2/p1ppppNq/Ppr1p2p/8/1R6/8/1Q3BB1/1R2b2K w - - 0 1[/fen]
The author claims the above puzzle can be solved in 7 moves, however, he doesn't supply the solution. [...]
Just for curiosity: where did you find the problem, Bill?
It was on a YouTube video which I can't find any more. What's in Rybka's evaluation, that has to be a killer function.
Regards from Spain.
JVMerlino wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:00 pm
My engine, rated about 2600, with 8 cores, needed 7 minutes and 26 seconds to announce Mate in 10 with Rxb6, searching almost 7.9B nodes.
21 32748 44598 7,881,802,951 b4b6 c7b6 (17672 KNPS)(Mate in 10)
Can you specify the metrics in your generic evaluation function?
I assume you are interested in the search functionality, since the evaluation is not as important in mate-finding. Actually, a very simple evaluation will often find mates much faster than a complex one, although of course the more complex one will provide more elo if implemented and tuned properly. To prove this, I modified Myrddin to only use a very simple evaluation - just material and PST, while maintaining knowledge of material draws. It found the Mate in 10 in only 50 seconds (compared to 446 seconds with the full evaluation).
Anyway, Myrddin's A/B search has the following features, and all use very standard implementation:
History Heuristic
Killer Moves
Null Move
IID
Razoring
Mate Distance Pruning
Two aspiration windows before full-width search
Reasonably aggressive reductions using logarithmic formula
Check and Single-reply extensions