Author: Tony Werten
Date: 01:06:53 12/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2001 at 03:30:13, Severi Salminen wrote: >>Either you have extremely good move ordering, you have a bug, or you're counting >>in quiescence search also, which is "cheating". 96% is very very high. Crafty >>gets 90% here. > >I also tested with Crafty and did a search to same depth than on Requiem and got >worse percentage and wondered waht causes the difference. You were right, I >_was_ counting in qsearch also (I had thought it was the standard), BUT: when I >removed the calculation in qsearch the figure increased by 0.2 (95.9% -> 96.1%). >And without null moves it was still 98.9%. So I guess I have an "extremely good >move ordering" :) But it was only this position, on other positions the figure >might be lower (or highr on the other hand). > >This is how I calculate (this is done, if score>=beta): > >FailHighCount++; >if(moves_searched==1) > FirstMoveFail++; > >This is not done in rootnode, so it might bias the results ;) I don't want to sound unfriendly, but I think you forget to increase moves_searched in your search. 98.9% is impossible without hashtables. (even with, it's doubtfull) You must have a perfect SEE to get this. Even then, the amount of noncapturemoves that are best is higher than 1.1% Tony > >Severi
This page took 0.01 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.