Author: Mikael Bäckman
Date: 02:01:24 03/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 18:12:45, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. Before the longer test, I ran a few positions for about 10 seconds and looked up the largest value in the history tables. A value of 10000 seemed to give me about one aging a second. Maybe we update the history tables differently? I use history[] += d*d, where d = depth/FULLPLY. FULLPLY is 8. /Mikael
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.