Author: Landon Rabern
Date: 17:41:40 12/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2000 at 16:16:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 08, 2000 at 13:21:21, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>On December 08, 2000 at 13:06:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 08, 2000 at 12:56:09, Peter Fendrich wrote: >>> >>>>I looking for a measurement for move generation performance. >>>> >>>>Do you think FH/CountNodes, where FH is number of times the first generated move >>>>was a Fail High, is a good measurement? >>>>Do you have some other? >>>>What's your figures? >>>>I get some 50% and I have a feeling it's to low. >>>> >>>>//Peter >>> >>> >>>The critical statistic I measure in crafty is this: "For any position where >>>I 'fail high' (return a score >= beta) what percentage of the time does it >>>happen on the _first_ move?" I generally average 92%. Anything over 90% is >>>reasonable. Anything less means move ordering needs work. >> >>OK, it seems logical. I have in princple 3 types of FH: >> 1) Hash table (without moving) >> 2) Null Move >> 3) Ordinary moves (including the hash table move) >> >>Do you include all these cases? >>With only the third case counted I'm well over 90% >> >>//Peter > > >Only 1 and 3. 2 is done at a different place in the search and doesn't >really count in "move ordering". > >Actually, the way you wrote it, only 3 counts. for 1) you are not searching >a move, so that can't be counted. 2) doesn't count either... I am getting about 80% on this, is this real bad? I am not doing internal interative deepening, do you think this will help a lot, or do you think there is something else wrong. I try moves in this order: hash/pv all captures sorted MVV/LVA two killers 3 history scan moves the rest Regards, Landon W. Rabern
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.