Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 05:12:00 10/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2002 at 07:06:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 16, 2002 at 06:52:17, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On October 16, 2002 at 06:39:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2002 at 06:37:40, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 2002 at 06:33:39, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>It uses (I wouldn't say wastes) quite a bit of resources, >>>>>but there is also a gain. I find that it is almost perfectly >>>>>breaking even for me. I search less deep, but I am seeing >>>>>some deep tactics and avoid getting into some dangerous >>>>>situations. >>>> >>>>really ?! >>>> >>>>interesting. >>>> >>>>i gave up using SEX in rebel XP.... >>> >>>the problem of SE shows when search depths get big. >>>GCP is basically testing at bullet levels and then you don't >>>get search depths of 12+ ply soon. >> >>I don't notice them worsening things at longer time controls >>either, but then again, I've never been a very deep searcher, >>though things are changing. >> >>I also understand that you do the full Hsu thing, so your >>overhead must be a lot bigger. > >I do way more. I can do way more. The nonsense lines get >pruned by nullmove. In Hsu's creations they were not. > >>If I find that with increasing hardware speed/slower timecontrols >>it does start getting worse, I will uncheck the 'singular extensions' >>checkbox and problem solved :) >> >>>In DIEP the price of SE is basically getting too big at those depths. >> >>I gather from this you won't be using them this weekend? Or is >>90m SD also 'bullet'? > >I am talking about the crucial 12 ply search depth for DIEP. >I will be getting about 10-12, so the weakest spot is those 10 ply >searches. There i will be using SE. > >My overhead at 10 ply is about half a ply for SE. But at 12 ply >it can be easily 2 ply. Doesn't need to be so. Nullmove sometimes powerful >prunes away the stuff in quiet positions. > >It's the tactical positions where sometimes even a 11 ply search depth >has plies overhead. SE is a very stupid extension in fact. I am sure >in the far future it's too stupid to let your b.f. worsen with it. > >It makes my b.f. simply a lot worse. With 3 ply reduction however >the worsening starts not directly. Because in the root i don't do 'em >and the last 3 ply i don't do them. So i save 4 ply. > >It's trivial that at 12 ply you feel it for 8 ply and at 10 ply you >'just' feel it for 6 ply. > >In other words it's % from 10 ply is 60% of search depth. At 12 ply it's 75% >of total search depth. > >That triggers more. > >Suppose in a few years we all get 15 ply. For me within 1 year perhaps >(if i get some processors from NWO to use). I can't afford SE then simply. > >DB never was tested very well, let's be realistic here. Otherwise he >might have kicked it out too and would have gotten more nodes a second >then. > So your testings showed, that SE create more overhead at deeper depth? What does that cause? Why is the overhead at depth 10 about half a ply and at depth 12 two? regards Jochim
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.