Author: Laurens Winkelhagen
Date: 17:14:18 07/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2004 at 14:35:50, Eric Oldre wrote: >[D]8/k7/3p4/p2P1p2/P2P1P2/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1 > >I ran my engine on the fine 70 position above. which Anthony Cozzie recommended >to me last night as a good position to test for transposition table issues. >below is my new engines analysis of the position. > >(note, I'm not yet sure if I will call it "Murderhole2" or give it a completely >new name) > >Murderhole2 release WB2 25 MB: > 1 00:00 1.48 a1b1 > 2 00:00 1.40 a1b1 a7a8 > 3 00:00 1.45 a1b1 a7a8 b1c1 > 4 00:00 1.40 a1b1 a7b8 b1c1 b8c8 > 5 00:00 1.40 a1b1 a7b8 b1b2 b8c8 b2c1 > 6 00:00 1.40 a1b1 a7b8 b1b2 b8b7 b2c1 b7c8 > 7 00:00 1.40 a1b1 a7b8 b1b2 b8b7 b2b1 b7c8 b1c1 > 8 00:00 1.40 a1b1 a7b8 b1b2 b8b7 b2b1 b7b8 b1c1 c8b8 > 9 00:00 1.45 a1b2 a7a8 b2c1 a8b8 c1d2 b8c8 d2c2 >10 00:00 1.40 a1b2 a7a8 b2c1 a8b8 c1d2 b8c8 d2c2 c8b7 c2c1 b7c8 >11 00:00 1.45 a1a2 a7a6 a2b2 a6b6 b2c3 b6a7 c3d2 a7a8 d2c2 a8b8 >12 00:00 1.42 a1a2 a7a6 a2b2 a6b6 b2c3 b6a7 c3d2 a7a8 d2c2 a8b8 c2d2 b8c8 >13 00:00 1.47 a1b1 a7b7 b1c1 b7a8 c1d2 a8b8 d2e1 b8b7 e1f1 b7c8 f1g2 >14 00:01 1.45 a1b1 a7b7 b1a1 b7c8 a1b2 c8b7 b2b3 b7c7 b3c4 c7b6 c4c3 >15 00:02 1.47 a1a2 a7a8 a2b1 a8b8 b1a2 b8c8 a2a3 c8b8 a3b3 b8b7 b3b2 >16 00:04 1.45 a1a2 a7b7 a2b2 b7c8 b2c3 c8b7 c3b2 b7c8 b2c3 c8b7 c3b2 b7c8 >b2a1 c8c7 c1b1 >17 00:08 1.48 a1b1 a7a8 b1c1 a8a7 c1d2 a7b6 d2e2 b6c7 e2f3 c7d8 f3e2 >18 00:12 1.58 a1a2 a7a8 a2b2 >19 00:35 1.60 a1b1 a7b8 b1c1 b8c8 c1c2 c8c7 c2d3 c7b6 d3e2 b6c7 e2e3 c7d8 >e3d3 d8c7 >20 01:12 1.62 a1b1 a7b7 b1c1 b7c7 c1b2 c7c8 b2c2 c8b7 a2b2 b8c8 b2c2 c8b7 >a2b2 b8c8 b2c2 c8b8 a3b3 b8c7 >21 03:51 1.62 a1b1 a7b7 b1c1 b7c7 c1b2 c7c8 b2a2 c8b8 a2a1 b8b7 a1b1 b7a7 >b1c1 a7b7 > >it does eventually at depth 19 decide on the correct answer of a1b1. however, it >looks like it is simply it trying to avoid the draw by repitition and counts >itself as ahead due to it's extra pawn. it doesn't get a crushing score at this >depth at all. > >at this point the eval function is simply static material and piece/square value >tables, i hope to add more advanced techniques this week. > >I'm looking for some advice in interpreting these results. > >a) did I just not let it search deep enough? >b) does the fact that it took 3:51 to reach depth 21 indictate a issue with my >tranposition table? it was running at 1,200,000 nodes/sec. I seem to have a similar problem, but not quite. My engine (janwillem) reaches the correct move with a +3 result (23 plies) in just half a minute (160,000 nodes/sec, barely double the nps from the starting position) but unfortunately, it's second move takes waaaay too long. However, when I try the second move as if it were the first move, the computer is again quick with the solution. It seems like I'm filling my hashTable with garbage, cluttering the hashtable so that I cannot get the correct results. I tried both always replace and depth replace, but this doesn't seem to have too much effect. I cannot believe I should empty the hashtables before each new computermove, Am I overlooking something simple? all ideas are welcome, I'm fresh out. Thanx, Laurens.
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.