Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:06:46 05/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2003 at 22:28:17, Ross Boyd wrote: >On May 15, 2003 at 21:47:20, Jon Dart wrote: > >>Ernst Heinz did this by using standard test suites, for example Win at Chess, or >>ECM (Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegames). He found that the solve rate didn't >>really change much with forward pruning on, but the number of nodes searched for >>a fixed ply depth decreased 20-50% (this is from the chapter on AEL pruning in >>his book Scaleable Search in Computer Chess). He also used other testing >>methods, including game play, as detailed in the book. >> >>--Jon > >Hi, >I use WAC to measure gains in performance but there is a real danger in this. >Once as an experiment I modified my qsearch to radically prune 'losing' captures >. This resulted in a huge improvement to my WAC scores (from 280 to 292 solved). >But my engine played much much worse (than it already did) over the board. > >So, I concur with Jon (and Ernst, I guess) that gameplay is vital to gauge true >performance. I would guess there is no quick way to prove the worth of an >algorithm change. Obviously test suites can alert you to obvious problem areas >but should be treated with some suspicion. Maybe WAC is not the right test suite to try. I think that a good test suite should be based on tactical errors of computers in games when the target is to avoid them. I was too lazy to build that test suite until today. 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.