Author: scott farrell
Date: 03:47:50 09/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 2003 at 14:54:25, Geoff wrote: >Hi > >Thanks Scott & Richard for the replies, I forgot to mention in my post that I >had already implemented killer moves, that did help quite a bit as you say. > >Out of interest here is my output for nodes and time for the start position. >What would the concensus be on these figures, good, bad or average ? >I am guessing my nps is good but my nodes visited is fairly bad compared to >typical engines. >I think I will concentrate next on trying to improve move ordering some more >rather than trying futility pruning and other risky sounding stuff. Looks like I >had better have a go at a root search function, but I am not that clear yet on >how to get a better move order at the root. > >No hash Table >Ply Eval Time Nodes Principle Variation > 1: 48 0 26 d2d4 > 2: 0 0 97 d2d4 d7d5 > 3: 35 0 635 d2d4 d7d5 g1f3 > 4: 0 0 2218 d2d4 d7d5 g1f3 b8c6 > 5: 35 1 15040 d2d4 d7d5 g1f3 g8f6 b1c3 > 6: 13 6 69361 e2e4 b8c6 d2d4 e7e5 g1f3 g8f6 > 7: 38 32 352671 e2e4 e7e6 b1c3 d7d5 d2d4 g8f6 f1b5 > 8: 18 65 687449 e2e4 e7e6 b1c3 b8c6 g1f3 d7d5 d2d4 g8f6 > 9: 35 282 3064714 e2e4 e7e6 d2d4 b8c6 g1f3 d7d5 e4d5 e6d5 b1c3 >10: 10 804 8,323,244 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 g8f6 b1c3 b8c6 f1b5 f8b4 d2d3 b4c3 >b2c3 > >8Meg Hash Table >Ply Eval Time Nodes Principle Variation > 1: 48 0 26 d2d4 > 2: 0 0 97 d2d4 d7d5 > 3: 35 0 632 d2d4 d7d5 g1f3 > 4: 0 0 2080 d2d4 d7d5 g1f3 b8c6 > 5: 35 1 11463 d2d4 d7d5 g1f3 b8c6 b1c3 > 6: 13 4 44199 e2e4 b8c6 d2d4 d7d5 e4d5 d8d5 > 7: 38 18 202541 e2e4 e7e6 d2d4 d7d5 b1c3 g8f6 f1b5 > 8: 18 37 380917 e2e4 e7e6 d2d4 d7d5 b1c3 b8c6 g1f3 g8f6 > 9: 35 90 918522 e2e4 >10: 10 295 2,875,200 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 g8f6 b1c3 b8c6 f1b5 f8b4 d2d3 b4c3 >b2c3 > Regards Geoff here are my numbers: ->1/0(1) 1.99 0.02secs 22 E3 ->2/1(3) 0.15 0.1secs 118 E3 E6 ->3/3(4) 1.2 0.481secs 391 E3 E6 H4 ->4/5(5) 0.2 0.751secs 2165 D4 D5 E3 NF6 ->5/6(7) 1.18 0.931secs 5952 D4 D5 NF3 QD6 QD3 ->6/7(9) 0.17 2.053secs 44840 E3 E6 D4 NC6 H4 QF6 ->7/10(9) 0.73 5.208secs 160404 NC3 E5 E4 NC6 H4 QF6 QF3 d8/11(15) 0/20 -0.15 7.761secs 268557 NC3 E5 E4 NC6 H4 H5 ND5 ND4 d8/11(15) 1/20 -0.05 9.644secs 339436 D4 D5 NF3 NC6 QD3 BG4 BG5 d8/11(15) 3/20 -0.04 12.278secs 452452 E4 D5 ->8/11(15) -0.04 14.301secs 536078 E4 D5 d9/15(18) 0/20 0.38 23.244secs 946895 E4 D5 d9/15(18) 1/20 0.45 48.271secs 1904341 D4 D5 BF4 NF6 NC3 BG4 F3 ->9/15(18) 0.45 55.482secs 2160219 D4 D5 BF4 NF6 NC3 BG4 F3 d10/16(20) 0/20 -0.07 96.343secs 3840142 D4 D5 BF4 NF6 NC3 BG4 F3 d10/16(20) 1/20 0.26 119.617secs 4877161 E4 D5 PxD5 QxD5 ->10/16(20) 0.26 162.04secs 6690723 E4 D5 PxD5 QxD5 I think it is as much to do with the amount of extensions / what you put in the qsearch as the actual ordering, and a lot with your eval function. I have heavy extensions, and therefore many more nodes than you. notice how my root move ordering is pretty good. If it goes to another move, its always nearly next. How I do root move ordering: 1. ply 1-2 each move is searched at -INF,+INF and NOT alpha,beta - 2. plies 2,3,4 - alpha-QUEEN,beta alpha-rook,beta alpha-knight,beta alpha-pawn, beta respectively , and then take the value, and keep a seperate ordered table for root based on value. I have some maths to order moves that a value from a larger ply to eight higher even if the score is slightly lower, as you start to not get values for all moves at higher plies. 3. normal alpha/beta for root moves after ply 4/5, but still fiddle the ordering based on fail low/high moves.
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.