Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 23:06:42 01/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2001 at 14:30:18, Severi Salminen wrote: >Hi! > >I made a few test games between a version of my engine using SEE and another >using just MVV sorting. I played only a few (24) games and time control was >5min/G and in 8 games 1min/G. The result was 12-12! Is this possible, normal, or >do I have a bug? I would have guessed that the SEE version had beat the hell out >of the other but that never happened. It seems that SEE slows things down a lot >and the net result seems to be that it searches equally deep compared to the >other version. Has anyone here measured the true benefit of using SEE? Could you >show me positions in which SEE makes a big difference or could you run self-test >games between two versions of your program? Are there positions where SEE hurts >searching? I really like to know if SEE is worth it? I have a relatively slow >computer (300Mhz Celeron, Crafty running at 80KNPS) so could time control and >overall speed have influence on this? > >Any comments are welcome! > >Severi Maybe, just maybe, you have a very inefficient SEE... mine slows nps by ~10% comparing to MVV. Or maybe you use too big margin when allowing qsearch moves... Or maybe you are right? hard to tell stuff about someones unSEEn code...:) -Andrew-
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.