Author: Tony Werten
Date: 02:14:48 08/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2004 at 03:52:23, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On August 07, 2004 at 03:47:37, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>So here is an 8 ply search of the opening >>position without SEE: >> >>Alpha=-250 Beta=250 Maxdepth=8 MaxTime=9999999 >> 1/ 2 e2e4 0.00 35 41 e2e4 >> 2/ 4 e2e4 0.00 0 149 e2e4 e7e5 >> 3/ 9 e2e4 0.01 17 450 e2e4 e7e5 f1c4 >> 4/14 e2e4 0.02 0 2283 e2e4 e7e5 f1c4 f8c5 >> 5/17 e2e4 0.06 17 7260 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1c4 >> 6/23 e2e4 0.40 0 46344 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1c4 f8c5 >> 7/26 e2e4 1.08 17 119943 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1c4 g8f6 b1c3 >> 8/31 e2e4 6.11 0 699160 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1c4 g8f6 b1c3 f8c5 >>e2e4 6.11 0 699160 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1c4 g8f6 b1c3 f8c5 >>nps=114484 ha=17.00% q=57.0% bc=71% br=NaN% mp=108<>99 >>pawnx=0 recapx=0 qcheckx=27853 checkx=0 futilx=0 qfutilx=0 >> >>And with SEE: >> >>Alpha=-250 Beta=250 Maxdepth=8 MaxTime=9999999 >> 1/ 2 e2e4 0.00 35 41 e2e4 >> 2/ 4 e2e4 0.00 0 149 e2e4 e7e5 >> 3/ 5 e2e4 0.00 17 439 e2e4 e7e5 f1c4 >> 4/10 e2e4 0.02 0 2093 e2e4 e7e5 f1c4 f8c5 >> 5/13 e2e4 0.05 17 6550 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1c4 >> 6/20 e2e4 0.31 0 37096 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1c4 f8c5 >> 7/24 e2e4 0.81 17 90371 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1c4 g8f6 b1c3 >> 8/34 e2e4 6.48 4 740555 e2e4 g8f6 b1c3 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1c4 f8c5 >>e2e4 6.48 4 740555 e2e4 g8f6 b1c3 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1c4 f8c5 >>nps=114244 ha=35.00% q=50.0% bc=68% br=NaN% mp=105<>106 >>pawnx=0 recapx=0 qcheckx=9862 checkx=0 futilx=0 qfutilx=0 >> >>The result is worse (6.11 seconds vs. 6.48 seconds). This is >>true of a larger test of problem positions. >> >>The use of SEE was in the quiescence search only and >>involved rejecting any search of a capture whose SEE >>value to the to square of the capture was <0, otherwise >>the move would be made, legality tested, and if legal, >>then the recursive capture search performed (with the >>same see test.) >> >>Is this an abnormal result? What could explain it? I thought >>SEE was a shoe-in? >> >>Stuart > >The only thing I can think is that the SEE routine is not >implemented correctly. For example, after e4, d5 I do a SEE >on d5 and it returns -8000 instead of 0. Queen - Pawn ? > >So the SEE itself is clearly broken. That explains. In general, you can't compare before and after if the you get completely different main lines (as you got ) Normally this happens when you do eval changes, wich brings the witchcraft part into it: How do I see if I made an improvement. Tony
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.