Author: Mikael Bäckman
Date: 13:28:30 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 16:22:42, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. Yes. I sort moves by: 1. Hash 2. Good captures 3. Equal captures 4. Killers 5. History 6. Losing captures I use SEE for captures. >What happens when you have all of your move ordering techqniques in use and then >you change only the history heuristic? All moveordering techniques were in use. The above happens. :) /Mikael
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.