Author: Dan Newman
Date: 18:03:18 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 17:45:16, Steve Maughan wrote: >Dan, > >Thanks for the input. Your stats would indicate that my hash table / move >ordering is to blame - this is helpful. I'll take a look. Looks as though you >have created a fast program! > >Thanks again, > >Steve I just read Vincent's post above where he turned off his hash move and got very little difference. I tried the same thing and got the same result. I went from 2.94 to 3.24 seconds (1.27 to 1.36 Mnodes). So I take back my hash move sugestion. I guess that internal iterative deepening really works :). Dang. I commented out my IID and the node count only rose to 1.49 Mnodes. I tried to comment out my SEE, but that breaks something... I guess the only thing I can think of that makes a really huge difference is the null-move heuristic. That did the trick. With the null-move off I get 12 Mnodes... -Dan. > >>Mine (Shrike) is doing this in just under 3s (1.27M nodes) on a P3/600. >>It's getting about a 35% hit rate on the hash table, so this may well >>be the problem. Those hash table moves are really important in getting >>good move ordering (and a low branching factor). >> >>I also keep stats on the fraction of cutoffs from the first move tried >>and the fraction that are from hash table moves. In this case I'm >>getting 92% of the cutoffs from the first move and 25% from the hash table. >> >>-Dan.
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.