Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 06:56:21 09/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 13:59:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. also note that Diep & Sjeng probably have better move ordering than crafty, not to mention searching more slowly; its not suprising that it works for them to split lower in the tree. anthony
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.