Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: WACNEW 40% less fails when Sharper get 12x the time

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 04:35:01 03/17/03

Go up one level in this thread

On March 17, 2003 at 06:47:17, Albert Bertilsson wrote:

>On March 17, 2003 at 06:43:30, Uri Blass wrote:
>>On March 17, 2003 at 05:47:29, Albert Bertilsson wrote:
>>>Since Uri pointed out that my PV was rotten I fixed that to see what happens.
>>>I picked out all 105 positions that failed when running for 5 seconds and
>>>increased the time to 60 seconds.
>>>The results was quite nice, some 40 positions where solved!
>>still 65 unsolved positions are a lot.
>>Movei can solve 275 out of 300 in less than a second.
>>Movei needs something between 0.1 and 0.2 seconds on my A1000 to get 65 unsolved
>>Do you use history tables and killer moves for better order of moves?
>>Do you use MVV/LVA or some more logical way to order captures?
>Ok, so I'll go out on the bug hunt!
>Sharper uses MVV/LVA to order captures.
>I've tested killer moves but it only gave 1-2% less nodes, maybe I did it
>I'm currently testing history tables and it seems to give me about 5% less
>nodes, maybe I got that one wrong too!?
>/Regards Albert

I guess that you did something wrong.

I did not have a version without history tables so I cannot say how much history
gives me relative to no history.

I implemented killers before hash tables(I do not know how much it gave me but
it was clearly more than 1-2%).

The gain is also not supposed to be linear and is supposed to be biggers at long
time control.

I suspect that you often  have the wrong killer like you had the wrong pv and it
may explain your problems with killers move.

I guess that there is some problem with using history tables because I expect
them to help more than 5%(I do not say it from expereince because I never had
a program without history tables).


This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.