Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:20:42 01/28/01
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 If the only difference is SEE vs MVV/LVA, I generally find the two work about equally well. SEE will search a 10% smaller tree, but will use 10% more time per node. Breaks even. MVV/LVA is the opposite. But if you use SEE to eliminate bad captures in the q-search, then you can make the SEE program 2x faster than the non-SEE program. That should begin to make a difference.
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.