Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 22:26:32 01/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2003 at 20:03:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 16, 2003 at 17:01:29, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>On January 16, 2003 at 16:48:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>> >>>See my response earlier. With 8-9 pieces on the board, you are doing a >>>worst-case >>>test, as many lines will turn into a probe. With more pieces, this tapers off. >>>And, of >>>course, if you are in a game, the cache gets "seeded" slowly so that the >>>drop-off won't >>>be as bad as when starting off in a near-EGTB position. >> >>I know this is a harsh test, but to begin with I posted this because I >>experience this slowdown in real games. >> >>/David > > >Everybody has seen this. That is why most of us limit how deep we are into the >tree when probing is allowed. The information you get is perfect, but if you >probe too much, the loss of depth gets you killed tactically. > *sigh* As I've written several times in this thread, I _do_ limit probing. More so than Crafty, for what I can read. You probe in the first two plys unconditionally, I do it in the first only. And if you have the whole set, that rule doesn't even make sense. All other limitations are the same as Crafty's as far as I can see. You can also see from my probe numbers that I don't probe more than others. >You have to find the right balance. I used to have an adaptive algorithm that >varied the depth limit for probes based on how badly I was slowing down, but >it was too complicated and too much trouble. And probes sometimes come in >spurts with long "silent" spots due to hashing, etc... Sure. /David
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.