Author: martin fierz
Date: 05:44:04 09/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2004 at 08:19:15, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 28, 2004 at 02:14:51, martin fierz wrote: > >>On September 27, 2004 at 23:45:54, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>I experimented with reordering root ply at iterative depth iply > 1 >>>where 1 is the root ply, with the results of iply-1 sorted by the >>>total nodes of quiescence and main search defined as the # of entries >>>for each of those subroutines. >>> >>>I didn't sort at root node on the first sort by quiescence but instead >>>by my normal scheme though I tried quiescence and it was worse. I felt >>>this gave a better chance to the above method. >>> >>>I sorted moves at the root ply for iply > 1 in the following way >>>for 7 different parts to the experiment. >>> >>> sort by normal method (history heuristic, mvv/lva, see, etc. >>> sort exactly by subtree node count, nothing else >>> sort by subtree node count added to normal score (hh, mvv/lva, see, etc.) >>> same as previous but node count x 10 before addition >>> same as previous but node count x 100 before addition >>> same as previous but node count x 1000 before addition >>> same as previous but node count x 10000 before addition >>> >>>The results, measured by # right on Win-at-Chess varied from >>>250 for the first in the list above to 234 for the last. >>>Most bunched up between 244-247 except the first was 250, >>>my current best on WAC with handtuning everything. >>> >>>For me, I'm convinced that this style of sorting root ply is >>>slightly less good for my short searches compared to what I am using: >>>a combination of history, heuristic, see(), and centrality with >>>various bonuses, about a half page of code sprinkled about. >>> >>>The advantage of sorting root node by subtree is the simplicity. >>>It eliminates about a half a page of code and introduces >>>about a quarter page of code for only slightly lesser results >>>(within 1-2% of my current result) so that is good. >>> >>>Still I think I'll leave it #ifdefed out for now and use it as >>>a baseline that is only improvable upon with handtuning of my >>>current methods and others to be discovered. >>> >>>Stuart >> >>...as ed schröder said to me: "terrible testing". he was right, of course. >> >>cheers >> martin > >Each to his own. if you get free advice from one of the world's best computer chess programmers it is a good idea to use it. there's not much point writing tons of posts here asking for advice if you don't listen.... cheers martin
This page took 0.01 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.