Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 13:50:21 01/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2002 at 16:30:22, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On January 21, 2002 at 15:56:59, Antonio Dieguez wrote: > >>>It should matter in quiet positions, right? >> >>Well, It should matter depending on how often the pv changes, so may be more in >>unquiet positions. >> >>>Well, here is data, opening >>>position: >>> >>>Rootwindow <-inf, inf> takes 2404K nodes >>>Rootwindow <-50, 50> takes 2420K nodes >>> >>>...to complete 10 ply. >> >>strange, I don't know the logic there, i would have guessed a bigger >>difference. please don't be angry but if that is what I would get in amyan >>regularly I would be sure it has a bug or I made a mistake in the experiment. > >It is possible of course, but I don't think so. It just don't seem to buy me a >lot. As far as I know it has never been proven anyway. Plus (based on only a >couple of tests) I simply don't see it here. I've just tried with my engine. I tested the initial position, wac.epd and bk.epd. In all cases, no aspiration window was better! Wow. I am surprised. It wasn't a lot better, but it wasn't worse, and it was simpler. It did surprise me however, that I solved 2 positions less in wac. At first I thought I had a bug, but now I don't. I have looked at the searches for the relevant position, and it just seems that hash tables are filled with different things in the two cases. While scoring two less isn't good, it is only 0.5 percent or so. I don't know if it matters. I think I will make an engine - engine match between the two versions. If I could skip aspiration window, I wouldn't have those false fail-highs at the root. /David
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.