Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:22:42 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 16:14:40, Mikael Bäckman wrote: > >Hi, > >I ran some tests with history and different methods of aging it, as discussed in >this thread: > >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?354812 > >I picked 15 test positions from this years Linares tournament. 10 positions are >from move 20 and 5 from move 40. I didn't study the positions much before >selecting them. > >I used 90 seconds per position as I didn't know how deep I could search without >spending days on this... First I ran a test without historytables, to get a >depth to compare the other tests to. Most of the depths were completed in 20-60 >seconds. Perhaps a bit shallow, but it gives an idea of the performance. > >I use a side-piece-to historytable or history[side][piece][to] and I use at most >8 history moves at a node. After that I try the moves in the order they are >generated. > > >Test1 = No History >Test2 = History >Test3 = History - root aging >Test4 = History - age as soon as a history score gets larger than 10000. >Test5 = Same as 2 but with pawnmoves generated after all other moves. Included >this for fun, but it seems to work best. :) > >Aging was done by dividing the values in the history tables with 8. >Nodecounts are in thousands. > >Pos D Test1 Test2 Test3 Test4 Test5 >-------------------------------------------------- >01 12 27960 22044 21481 21923 21954 >02 12 37488 31165 31706 25631 26492 >03 10 34388 24471 24652 29455 24225 >04 12 25099 21307 23497 20555 23460 >05 13 30665 22026 22288 22156 21798 >06 10 16141 12861 13447 13050 13576 >07 14 44136 32362 31157 32776 32958 >08 14 39848 38378 39681 38337 28706 >09 11 31083 21410 24811 25470 25403 >10 12 38152 29568 28020 29394 25669 >11 13 29184 25017 27149 24854 23437 >12 13 52650 27674 24784 26427 25901 >13 14 58192 38986 41854 37978 41428 >14 13 50823 45372 41400 41283 45473 >15 13 63876 33226 32296 33651 32625 >-------------------------------------------------- > 579685 425867 428223 422940 413105 > (136%) (100%) (101%) (99%) (97%) > A 40% improvement for history heuristic is well above average improvement, I think. Did you have hashing and other move ordering techniques in play? I think not. If you have hashing operational, I would expect less than 25% improvement. What happens when you have all of your move ordering techqniques in use and then you change only the history heuristic?
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.