Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:15:39 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). I wouldn't count q-search. If you search _all_ captures then your fail high on the first move counter will look _really_ good (assuming you use SEE). Because most captures are bad, and the capture that refutes them is pretty obvious. If you use MVV/LVA then it won't look quite as good, but that is another topic... > >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 ;) > >Severi
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.