Author: scott farrell
Date: 17:45:17 03/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2004 at 20:02:13, GeoffW wrote: >Hi Dan > >Thanks for the extensive analysis, that was a lot of output so I summarised the >times to avoid the obvious Bishop takes rook > > >Amy-net-087............00:16 >Aristarch 4.41.........00:02 >DeepSjeng..............00:04 >Delfi-440..............00:13 >Dragon_45..............01:23 >ELChinito 3.25.........00:06 >Glc300.................00:05 >Gothmog................01:31 >Kke-253................00:08 >Ktulu..................00:23 >List512................00:04 >Patzer 3.61.......... >00:35 not resolved >Quark-232-net..........00:53 >Ruffian_202............00:03 >Ruffian_210........... 00:04 >Smarthink-017a.........00:10 >Yace...................01:06 >Shredder 7.04..........00:03 > > >This is seemingly a good test position to separate the elite programs from the >merely good ones, the real top programs can see and resolve this threat in less >than 5 seconds. > >I have only got to improve my program by a factor of 300 to get there, Arrrrrgh >! > >It looks as though my program is the only one that really suffers from a nodes >explosion though. Instead of trying to solve the fail low at depth 12, and cause a node explosion, on the fail low - go back to either depth 11 to reasearch, or depth 1. This way the hash will know that the captures will fail, and start choosing seemingly poorer moves at lower depths, but the fail low will be solved in many less nodes. After seeing the faillow at depth 12, it might solve it using the hash at depth 9. Scott > >I will do some experimenting on this tomorrow, maybe put some output in to try >and see what extensions are adding lots of nodes. I will try a few tests with >different features switched off to see if that makes a difference too ? > >>Interesting position. I would like to be white here, for sure. Great space >>advantage and extremely dangerous king attack possibilities. >> >>Most top engines seem to go through similar ideas about the position as yours >>does. >> >>What sort of hardware were you using? > >P4 1.6 Ghz running at 2.4 Ghz 512 Meg Ram (64Meg Hash table) >Yes, chess programs do make it get a tad overheated !! > > >> >>What sort of techniques are used in your chess engine? >> >judging from this test position, not eough of the correct or intelligent >techniques I would say :-) > >Joking apart, my program is TSCP + some code optimisations + 0x88 board + Null >Moves + Hash table + killer moves + some rudimentary extensions and pruning > >Pretty standard stuff, it is quite surprising how much stronger TSCP can be made >just from the above additions but with almost the same evaluation function. > > Regards Geoff
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.