Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 16:24:37 05/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2000 at 18:02:42, Bas Hamstra wrote: >Tom, > >I read another thread about Killers and have an opinion on it. > >- Doing captures separately speeds you up considerably >- Doing an on the fly legality check for killers speeds you up noticably >- Doing SEE based pruning of losing captures in the qsearch cuts the number of >nodes and improves node/qnode ratio. You don't have to SEE sort for it. I doubt >SEE sorting is a winner anyway. >- Having the former, you can skip losing captures in the normal search as well >with it, and do those later. Improves sorting noticably. > >This goes for all versions and half baken versions I have ever made. > >Bas. I did some quick tests with Tinker (of course, the search "ecosystem" of each program will be very different). Normally, Tinker probes the hash table, then does the hash move (if any), then killers, then generates moves, and so on. For the following, one history table for both sides is always used. Tested on five positions (opening, two from WAC, one from Fine and one BT2630): 1) Turning hash moves off--usually 2x slower, up to 10x slower, one test 5% faster. 2) Turning killers off (keeping 2 moves)--very mixed results: same, or up to 30% faster or up to 10x slower (Fine16) 3) Turning off both--better than no killers, but worse than no hash move. To my surprise, Tinker's WAC 300 score went UP with no killers. Again, this is with history (disabling history slows everything down A LOT). I may try some self-play tests with and without killers. Brian Richardson
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.