Author: Landon Rabern
Date: 11:51:17 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 14:08:23, Andrew Dados wrote: >On July 19, 2000 at 14:00:16, Landon Rabern wrote: > >>On July 19, 2000 at 13:22:47, Andrew Dados wrote: >> >>>On July 19, 2000 at 12:03:10, Landon Rabern wrote: >>> >>>>I have been discarding all captures where attackervalue>DefenderValue in my >>>>q-search which speeds it up significantly, but I know that it is throwing away >>>>some captures that are good. So I implemented a SEE function. The SEE returns >>>>the correct value on tests I have run. When I put this into my program so that >>>>if (attackervalue>DefenderValue)&&(SEE>=0) I keep the move as well, I got worse >>>>results on the WAC test suite. Before I put the see in I got 270/300 at 60 >>>>seconds per move and after I got 257/300 at 60 seconds per move. >>>> >>>>Is it just that there are no capture sequences in this test that need the extra >>>>captures, or is there something wrong with my SEE function? >>>> >>>>Thanks for any help, >>>> >>>> >>>>Landon W. Rabern >>> >>>It would be of help if you post some relevant positions. I may just guess now >>>that if you do check detection in qsearch you may find some mating combinations >>>with 'losing captures', when recapturing piece is overloaded simply, so in next >>>move capture is mate. (Or you may do some non-capturing,checking moves in >>>qsearch which complicates matters still). With SEE you miss those. Question is >>>if average speedup of SEE in non-tactical positions offsets those few missed by >>>using SEE.... >>> >>>-Andrew- >> >>I do not do checks in q-search. The problem is that I should be missing fewer >>tactical positions with SEE, than with just throwing all captures out where >>attackerValue>defenderValue. >> >>Landon > >So maybe you are much faster then SEE with throwing away all captures where >attackerValue>defenderValue... Single out those positions and compare PVs and >nodes produced with both versions of your qsearch ply by ply. Then maybe you/we >can learn what's going on. Do you reach extra ply or does your program find >those moves one/few plys sooner? > >-Andrew- I rememeber reaching an extra ply in many cases, I can not take a look at the PV's until late tonight since I am at work now and will be working late to get the product out on time. Landon
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.