Author: Will Singleton
Date: 15:32:29 05/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 1999 at 15:28:19, James Robertson wrote: >On May 04, 1999 at 15:03:08, Will Singleton wrote: > >> >>On May 04, 1999 at 13:07:42, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On May 04, 1999 at 12:40:05, Andrew Williams wrote: >>> >>>>On May 04, 1999 at 11:26:29, KarinsDad wrote: >>>> >>>>>I was wondering how deeply most programs extended the search at a given ply for >>>>>check. >>>>> >>>>>I implemented singular extensions, check extensions, and capture extensions into >>>>>my code last night, but ran into the problem of check extensions potentially >>>>>expanding the extensions into near infinity. >>>>> >>>>>How many checks do most programs consider is enough when extending? >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>KarinsDad :) >>>> >>>>My program simply says "if the iterative deepener started this search >>>>with depth=D, don't extend beyond 2*D". This is a naive approach, and >>>>I'd also be interested in hearing what anyone else does. >>> >> >>Sometimes the simple approach is the best. In mine (which I'm sure is not the >>best), I simply limit total extensions to 6 beyond depth. But I also consider >>some checks in the qsearch. >> >> >>>Yes, this sounds naive since I especially do not want to check 14 ply down when >>>I am currently searching Ply 14. I was thinking more along the lines of 8 ply >>>(if you do not get an advantage within 4 moves, then maybe it isn't worth >>>checking), but I am not sure. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>PS. Will, we realized that our nps is way off. We were compiling the code in >>>>>debug mode as opposed to optimized mode. So, our 100 knps went up to 209 knps. >>>>>Duh! >>>> >>>>209knps!! What position? >>> >>>This is on a P3 400 Mhz with super simple material evaluation code (for a lot of >>>positions, the program is still real stupid). It will drop in half at least once >>>I really implement the evaluation. >>> >>>> >>>>Andrew >> >>The most nps I get is around 90k, in the endgame. Avg around 60k on a mac 300. >>Even with a material only eval, I don't approach your numbers. You must be >>doing something right! >> >>btw, it's possible that you'll see reduced node counts due to increased cutoffs >>when you add some positional stuff. >> >>Will > >On my P233 I get about 120k NPS in most middlegame positions. In the endgame, I >get 200-270k NPS. With material only, I got greater than 300k. > >James What search method do you use? And is it bitboard-based? Will
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.