Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:14:31 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 12:48:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 03:40:31, Christophe Theron wrote: >Here is some sample data from crafty: > >nodes searched: 9.25M >nodes searched below a NULL move: 7.75M >null_move searches failing high: 1.02M >null_move searches failing low: .235M > >Another position: > >nodes searched: 15M >nodes searched below a NULL move: 5.5M >null_move searches failing high: 2.0M >null_move searches failing low: .5M > >That is why I said "this is not about a few percentage points." > >First position researched with R=4, just for fun: > >Nodes: 4.7M >below NULL: 3.3M >fail high: .624M >fail low: .138M > >Going from R=2~3 to R=4 reduced the search time by 50%. It is interesting to see direct comparison between R=3 and R=4. I did direct comparison in few test positions between recursive R=2 and recursive R=3 and there are positions when the time is reduced by more than 50%. I now run the GCP test suite(5 minutes per move) for recursive R=3. I am going to compare it later also with R=3 not recursive and with other options. Uri
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.