Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 16:41:52 12/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2001 at 21:51:56, leonid wrote: > >Hi, Heiner! > >>>Just look into fact that with new depth procedure of search will be changed. >>>Specialized files, for instance, will be at new depth. Somewhere it can bring >>>different search sequence and with it even better time for higher depth. >> >>Aah! Yes, you have a point, here. > >I tried today last position once again but starting this time search from 3 >moves like, (3 4 5...). When before it was, (4 5 6...). Now I could see that >previous time for your program was wrong and your specilized plys work much, >much better that I could see previously. Fantastic!!!!! When before I found 0.11 >sec for 4 moves, now I could see 0.0 sec. > >This finding could signify that my guessing about ten fold possible speeding of >mate solver is very sober expectation. It reality, it could be much higher. > >In the next position that I wrote yesterday, old tendency is more that present. >Our speed for 4 moves (all condition are the same) is around 9 times in your >favor. Mine at 4 moves is 0.44 sec. and your 0.05 sec. Even if mine have here >chance to have somehow better branching factor it reach your time only at 9 >moves. Initial speed is really vital. > >[D]3k4/3qqqrp/N1qq3R/NQ1Q3q/n2qNRPQ/n7/B6b/BqQrQbQK w - - > >My time in general: > >Move Time Branching factor NPS. > >4 0.439 sec 38k > 4.87 >5 2.14 sec 36k > 4.64 >6 9.94 sec 36k > 5.3 >7 52.8 sec 49k > 4.69 >8 4 min 8 sec 57k > 8.52 >9 35 min 13 sec 64k > >Mate found in 10 moves at 1 hour 53 min. Interesting. My timing is: # 4 0.09s [ 4.50] 5kN [ 5.24] 1.03 463- 0 # 5 0.42s [ 4.67] 26kN [ 5.54] 1.29 1786- 0 # 6 3.49s [ 8.31] 189kN [ 7.39] 1.51 16848- 0 # 7 23.41s [ 6.71] 1187kN [ 6.27] 1.80 130157- 0 # 8 146.17s [ 6.24] 7333kN [ 6.18] 2.13 871820- 0 # 9 783.47s [ 5.36] 39167kN [ 5.34] 2.66 4764548- 22074 # 10 5019.44s [ 6.41] 242350kN [ 6.19] 2.86 30197115- 21449215 Our NPS is nearly equal. My inital speed is clearly better: when you have done depth 4, Chest has completed depth=5, already. But although you do not use any hash, your EBF is better from 6 to 7 and to 8, while mine is better from depth 8 to 9. This may be due to luck, but it makes me curious: how do you manage such a good EBF? How do you select black moves? I know we both prefer checking moves, generally, but is there more to it in your program? Chest uses a really complicated function to order the black moves. You seem to be quite good in this respect, also. Cheers, Heiner
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.