Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:39:34 01/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 1998 at 12:54:42, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On January 12, 1998 at 13:48:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Here's a good sanity check. I ran win at chess #141 for 45 seconds. >>I hashed 99% of the pawn scores. The raw numbers were 4,341,832 probes >>attempted, 4,327,288 probes successful. IE Crafty only evaluated some >>15,000 pawn positions out of 4.3 million calls to evaluate pawns. This >>number was similar for every position in WAC (plus others) that I >>tested. >> >>note your hash (pawns) has to be large enough to hold everything, >>otherwise >>it is not as effective. > >Solution of WAC #141 was slow for me. It took 700+ seconds on a Pentium >133mhz. >The pawn tranposition table hashed 98% of the scores. > >I know there's been some discussion about #141 before. What kinds of >improvements help solve this problem? I'm hesitant to go making a lot >of changes for one problem unless someone says they've helped in other >areas and are willing to describe them. This is a hard one, especially if you use null-move, because you toss a queen early, and that will tend to make every null-move search for the opponent fail high, hiding the serious mate threats that are there. The mate extension Bruce explained helps significantly... > >--Stuart
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.