Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 09:27:18 10/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
... >>>Just ask. I'm not a teacher but I don't explaining to interested people. >> >>I guess you mean "I don't matter explaining to interested people" :) > >Actually I forgot to type in "mind" ok :) ... >>the exponential ones finished? I meant the search and killers and prunning and >>stuff, how can you finish that?? since when Xinix outsearch Fritz? :) I think >>you mean when you just can't advance via this way then try with the other, and >>change track next time when you have the same problem again. > >When you start you can win a lot with killers and pruning and stuff but at a >certain point the biggest winners are finished and you have to start with the >then biggest winners wich are smaller than the first ones. yep but we could consider the linear improvements(as I called speed) the thing that most could come to a near finish in comparison with the others. >A good evaluation can give a big win, but it's a lot more difficult and takes >very very much time. yea I know! how I know if this thingy is better than that or if this thingy is worth at all, how I know if incrementing this parameter in 1 or 2 is better, I don't have infinite computing time. I use a lot of my own common sense to tune the eval and I don't mind later to verify scientifically if that's better really. Even, amyan has become a bit less materialistic because when tunning the eval I tend only to increase values, and rarely decrease, no kidding :) >>>>By the way, 5 hashtables... wow :) I have only 2, the eval and the normal, by >>>>the way I have 59% of ram for the eval one, I know that other programs destinate >>>>much less for that, well, I hope enough ram is used. >>> >>>Way too much. ( My experience, not the absolute truth ) >> >>may be. I only tried a small set of positions(just 5!) and set it to search to >>depth 9 and taken the total time used. Next time I will more and more variated >>positions. I guess this is the way to test this? is a fact that hashtable data >>affects search in the next move too in a game but the normal and the eval >>hashtable as well so I hope this cheap way is enough... > >Until a certain level, using testpositions is good enough but you need more than >5. BT2630 is good to start with but you need more than 9 ply for most searches. >Even then you still have to use common sense. If you know you put in something >good it can still decrease the testsuite result. I though is not necessary to use test sets in wich you must find a move to measure the % of eval and normal hashtable, because the program will see the same move at the same depth in 95% of the cases(-5% only because instability!) so a fixed depth search is not bad. >In my program I found a bug that scored a passed pawn on the file it was on >instead of the rank. I changed it and the testsuite result went down with 50 >points :( that is weird! by te way LCTII seems hard to amyan, lctii says amyan is much weaker than it is in normal games, so for me that test is no good and uninteresting. A good test can measure the real strength in games, or in endgames or an aspect etc. >Another problem with testsuites is what to do with the results. Suppose you >change something and 4 positions gain 5 points and 1 looses 30. Total result is >minus 10. Keep the change in or not ? If the scoring is correct then don't keep it. But the problem is the scoring! :) I know too this problem, wich is very common for me when trying changes with the hashtable or killers or the size of the window. be well...
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.