Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:05:04 08/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2003 at 13:33:04, Rick Bischoff wrote: >Funny, I get something different: Brian made the same mistake I make all the time. Not deleting position.bin lets old searches affect the speed of this in a significant way. You should _always_ delete position.bin before running any test, unless you want learning to affect things. > >Crafty v19.3 > >White(1): sd 6 >search depth set to 6. >White(1): noise 1 >noise level set to 1. >White(1): book off >book file disabled. >White(1): go > clearing hash tables > time surplus 0.00 time limit 30.00 (3:30) > depth time score variation (1) > 1 0.00 0.25 1. e4 > 1-> 0.02 0.25 1. e4 > 2 0.02 -- 1. e4 > 2 0.02 -0.19 1. e4 e5 > 2-> 0.03 -0.19 1. e4 e5 > 3 0.03 0.05 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 dxe4 3. Nxe4 > 3 0.03 0.11 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 > 3-> 0.06 0.11 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 > 4 0.06 -0.19 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 > 4-> 0.08 -0.19 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 > 5 0.09 0.07 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 > 5 0.10 0.08 1. e3 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 > 5-> 0.11 0.08 1. e3 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 > 6 0.18 -0.23 1. e3 Nc6 2. Nf3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 <HT> > 6 0.21 -0.19 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 Bf5 > 6-> 0.27 -0.19 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 Bf5 > time=0.29 cpu=51% mat=0 n=32470 fh=86% nps=111k > ext-> chk=288 cap=189 pp=0 1rep=6 mate=0 > predicted=0 nodes=32470 evals=16967 > endgame tablebase-> probes done=0 successful=0 > hashing-> 41%(raw) 32%(depth) 3%(sat) 83%(pawn) > hashing-> 0%(exact) 19%(lower) 0%(upper) > > >On August 12, 2003 at 13:22:32, Brian Richardson wrote: > >>On August 12, 2003 at 12:03:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 12, 2003 at 06:23:26, macaroni wrote: >>> >>>>Hi, >>>>in an alpha-beta search, with hash tables, null moving, history heuristic, >>>>killers, pvs search, quiescent search, and itterative deepening. >>>>about how many nodes would one expect after a 6 ply search from the opening >>>>position, I get 13,000, is this way to many? or about right. >>>>Also, about how much extra performance would one expect from killers? I seem to >>>>get a really marginal increase, what replacement scheme is good for killers? >>>>thanks. >>> >>> >>>I get 42,000 as a reference. 13,000 may well be reasonable depending on how >>>you extend in the search., >> >>This seems odd. I get only 1667 nodes with Crafty v19.3 >>(and only slightly more with mt=1): >> >> >>Crafty v19.3 (2 cpus) >> >>White(1): sd 6 >>search depth set to 6. >>White(1): noise 1 >>noise level set to 1. >>White(1): go >> clearing hash tables >> time surplus 0.00 time limit 22.50 (3:30) >> depth time score variation (1) >>starting thread 1 >> 1 0.00 0.25 1. e4 >> 1-> 0.00 0.25 1. e4 >> 2 0.00 0.43 1. e4 e5 <HT> >> 2-> 0.00 0.43 1. e4 e5 <HT> >> 3 0.00 0.43 1. e4 e5 <HT> >> 3-> 0.01 0.43 1. e4 e5 <HT> >> 4 0.01 0.43 1. e4 e5 <HT> >> 4-> 0.01 0.43 1. e4 e5 <HT> >> 5 0.01 0.43 1. e4 e5 <HT> >> 5-> 0.01 0.43 1. e4 e5 <HT> >> 6 0.01 0.43 1. e4 e5 <HT> >> 6-> 0.01 0.43 1. e4 e5 <HT> >> time=0.01 cpu=200% mat=0 n=1667 fh=94% nps=10k >> ext-> chk=1 cap=1 pp=0 1rep=1 mate=0 >> predicted=0 nodes=1667 evals=853 >> endgame tablebase-> probes done=0 successful=0 >> SMP-> split=6 stop=0 data=2/32 cpu=0.02 elap=0.01 >> >>White(1): e4 >> time used: 0.01 >>learning position, wtm=1 value=43 >>Black(1):
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.