Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:59:40 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 13:51:34, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 03, 2003 at 13:48:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Mine is tunable. I run about 100 positions and pick the minply value that >>optimizes all 100 the best. I just checked and I am using 3 at the moment. I >>have not tested this recently. I think 3 was the optimal value for my quad >700. >> >>I will probably test this again on my dual to be sure that I have already done >>this correctly. > >You ignored my point, which is that saying that if you'll just split at 4 ply >to alleviate that problem causes another problem. > >It's not 'free' > >-- >GCP I never said _anything_ is "free". However "optimal" != "free" in this case. And since I have no choice, I go for optimal, whatever that is. There is a cost for splitting. If that cost is high, you have to limit the number of splits. Also, for obvious reasons, move ordering near the root is _far_ better than move ordering near the tips. Splitting where ordering is better is always a good idea. Note that I don't "just split at 4 ply" I split when there are >= N plies remaining in the search, where N can be set. I use 3 for the moment. I have run with 4 and 2 as well in the past, but for my program, my hardware, 3 was best last time I tested. I have noted that hardware influences this. On my P6/200 quad box, N=2 was better.
This page took 0.01 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.