Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:12:45 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 16:14:40, Mikael Bäckman wrote: >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'd prefer fewer positions and deeper searching. The global table only suffers a mild saturation in a shallow search, to really see the effect it must saturate badly and that takes a longer search ( > 100M nodes. >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. 10000 didn't work for me. I think it is too aggressive, you 'age' the table 10 times a second at this rate. Try with a larger number like 65000, that's about once a second. You don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater :) -S.
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.