Author: rasjid chan
Date: 04:13:12 06/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2005 at 04:47:27, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On June 20, 2005 at 15:18:05, rasjid chan wrote: > >> >>I have implemented hashing 2 bounds after reading fruit does this. >>It is fairly complicated to do and I just want to see if it is done wrongly. >> >>I measured the figure >> hash-hit-return-by-2nd-bound/total-hash-hit >> >>Per game move it is 0.000 almost all the time. >>Ocasionally it has 0.001 and almost rarely 0.002. >> >>If others have much higher figure then this,I suspect my double-bound is done >>badly. It is difficult to debug except through usual hit statistic. >> >>Vasic, >>If this 2nd bound statistic is correct, then fail-soft propagation >>of exactness is far better. For full-search FL exactness,it starts from 2/3% >>and drops to about 1% for whole game. >> > >I don't understand this sentence. > >You'll have exactness when your scores are inside the windows. > >You'll also have exactness in some very rare cases very close to the horizon, as >we discussed in the thread below. (This applies only to your custom algorithm.) > I now have statisic permanent (better) in my log output. The figure mentioned above is just 1 game(that's me). I measure only for full search fail-low and exact(w/o the algorithm,always upper) and NOT exact when scores within windows; x% = FULL_SEARCH_FL_EXACT/TOTAL_FULL_SEARCH_FL x 100.0; I summed nominator and denominator cummulatively as game proceeds. For the whole game, it may vary from 2 - 6%. This statistic I think is better then expected and significant. Of course none can expect something like 10-15%. If nullmove adds 150-200 ELO points as some say, then this (beefed-up fail soft) may add 15-20 points and is free; Best Regards Rasjid >Best regards, >Vas > >>Best Regards >>Rasjid
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.