Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Detecting Draws using a Small Hash Table?

Author: Sune Fischer

Date: 05:49:58 02/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On February 21, 2002 at 08:10:50, Uri Blass wrote:

>>>O(50) is not so big and it is not going to happen in every node in the
>>>search(even in that case I believe that the difference in speed is not more than
>>>10%).
>>
>>Your 10% seems like a wild guess, why not 50%? Do you have 500 conditionals in
>>your eval or something?
>
>I admit that 10% was a wild guess but even twice slower in these rare cases when
>in most cases it is less than 10% slower is not going to get your program more
>than 10 elo weaker.
>
>I do not 500 conditionals in the evaluation.
>My evaluation is only piece square table and the main problem is my move
>generator.
>
>I generate only slightly more than 150,000 nodes per second in the opening
>positions on p800 because my move generator generates information that is not
>used today(attack tables)
>
>It may be 200000-300000 nodes in the endgame.
>
>I do not know what is the situation of your program but I guess that it is not
>clearly faster(otherwise I could expect better results than the results that it
>did in a tournament of new engines in the winboard forum and I am happy that my
>stupid program that only has piece square table evaluation and is pronbably only
>slightly better than tscp based on my tests got the 3th place out of 10).

Hehe you got me there;)
I didn't even know it had been tested - oh horror.
Well my next version will be completely different, still too buggy to release
but it's woppin' the old one (when it's not crashing:).

I think 150 nps is a little low if you don't even have complicated evaluation,
I'm running at 500 nps in middelgame (athlon 1 gig) with piece-square, mobility
plus some simple pawn and kingsafty eval and close to 1Mnps in endgame. I know
there are some spots that can be tuned, but speed is not my concern, it is the
search algo I must improve. I am still doing a full-width alpha-beta without
nullmove. I want to fix the simpler bugs before enhancing that part :)

>My opinion is that almost all the new engines including mine are very weak and
>you have more important things to worry about than a faster repetition
>detection.

You are right, but I just joined the discussion :)

BTW: are you using a UnMakeMove function or do you use a backup?
I do a backup, seems both faster and simpler than to unmake the move, I'm a
little confused as to why some would unmake.


-S.

>Uri



This page took 0.02 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.