Author: scott farrell
Date: 02:41:31 12/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2002 at 01:33:00, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >1. e4 b6 2. exd5 exd5 3. Rb1 > = (0.25) Depth: 5 00:00:00.04 21kN >1. e4 b6 2. Qe2 dxe4 3. Bxe4 Nxe4 > = (0.25) Depth: 6 00:00:00.09 42kN >1. e4 b6 2. Qe2 dxe4 3. Bxe4 Nxe4 4. Nxe4 > = (0.25) Depth: 7 00:00:00.23 112kN >1. e4 b6 2. exd5 exd5 3. Qe1 Re8 4. Ne5 Nxe5 > = (0.24) Depth: 8 00:00:01.21 541kN >1. Ne5 Nxe5 2. dxe5 Nd7 3. Qg4 Kh8 4. Rfd1 b6 5. Bg3 > = (0.21) Depth: 9 00:00:09.75 4667kN >1. e4 b6 2. Qe2 Re8 3. Rfe1 Bb7 4. Nd2 a5 5. Bb5 Kh8 > = (0.15) Depth: 10 00:00:24.49 11115kN >1. e4 b6 2. Qe2 Re8 3. Rfe1 Bb7 4. Nd2 a5 5. Bb5 Bb4 6. f3 > = (0.15) Depth: 11 00:00:58.47 27207kN > >Time: 60093ms, Nodes: 27844k, Quiescence Nodes: 13650k [49%] >Table Hits: 4073k [15%], Table Pings: 5799k [21%], NPS: 463k, Null Cuts: 295k > >Recently I have noticed that Zappa sometimes changes its mind for 1 move in a >most annoying way. Its pretty clear that the score is not changing much, but it >still has to work out an entirely new PV. I expect that as I expand on the >rather rudimentary evaluation this problem will only get worse. So A) does >anyone else view this as a problem, and B) what did you guys do to mitigate it? > >anthony I have been thinking about this also. I think it,even when the PV doesnt change, it can waste a lot of time, trying to compare moves that are very very similar in score. I think the more crticial your eval function is, it can reduce the chance of the score being so close. I have been looking at fail-high recently (which is about using an aspiration window, and detecting fail-high at the root). I was thinking you could just go to the next ply after fail-high, and not look at the rest of the moves for that ply. That would save your time, at this risk of not finding the move that was slightly better. Scott
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.