Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 16:34:43 05/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2004 at 14:00:13, Tom Likens wrote: >On May 24, 2004 at 14:39:36, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On May 24, 2004 at 13:09:42, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>On May 24, 2004 at 12:39:35, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>On May 24, 2004 at 12:07:56, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 10:13:33, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>It would also be interesting to hear some background - how you arrived at what, >>>>>>>what else you tried & discarded, how confident you are about it, any general >>>>>>>thoughts, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>>That would take too much to read, I prefer to stay on topic and as short as >>>>>>possible. Your question is much better suited for a forum, so: I feel my way of >>>>>>doing king safety is okay, I can't say that about the evaluation of passed >>>>>>pawns, I feel most insecure about it. >>>> >>>>>It would be interesting to know how you determine if a change you make is an >>>>>improvement (if you are allowed to tell us, of course). >>>> >>>>You guessed well, I can't tell. >>>> >>>>Ed >> >>> But Ed, you surely had a method to determine that way before meeting >>>Christophe (which is the reason, I guess, you can't tell now). >> >>Yes. >> >> >>>Could you comment >>>on your pre-Christophe testing methods? >>> Thanks in advance. >> >>I can tell you one part, here is. I have testsets that contain well selected >>positions (tactics, positional, midgame, endgame etc.) Depending on the changes >>I have made I run a specific testset (or testsets) as first step in my own >>text-based DOS interface, it serves as a first smell. When finished I can >>produce several reports, such as to compare the results with a previous version. >> >>A screenshot: >> >>Rebel ... version RXP 05-07-2003 >>(REBEL XP) (A-2000) CV=100 >> >>Rebel ... version M02 04-04-2004 >>(KILLER - KD1|KD2|KD1-2|KD2-2) CV=RXP >> >>Number of searched positions : 260 >>Number of different moves : 5 >>Number of different scores : 8 (Interval score = 0.10) >>Number of different times : 22 (Interval time = 10%) >> >>Total time (version 1) : 00:57:56 Nodes 3.187.570 >>Total time (version 2) : 00:57:32 Nodes 3.151.571 >>Total percent : 1% (1.14%) >> >>Score 0.01 - 0.10 22 Nodes faster vs slower 119 - 117 >>Score 0.10 - 0.25 5 Nodes (1%) 119 - 51 >>Score 0.25 - 0.50 1 Nodes (2%) 61 - 34 >>Score 0.50 - 0.75 0 Nodes (3%) 42 - 26 >>Score 0.75 - 1.00 1 Nodes (4%) 36 - 20 >>Score 1.00 - 2.00 0 Nodes (5%) 31 - 19 >>Score greater 2.00 1 Nodes (9%) 12 - 13 >> >>Compare on <A>ll <M>ove <S>core <T>ime <N>odes <Q>uit >> >>================= >Ed, > >Thanks for posting this but I want to make sure I understand what >you've written. Specifically, I have a question about the >"Nodes faster vs slower" section. Does the line: > >Nodes (1%) 119 - 51 > >indicate that version 2 had 119 positions where it searched 1% fewer >nodes than version 1 *and* 51 positions where it searched 1% more >nodes (or am I missing the point altogether)? You got it right. The overview is handy to measure speed-up changes as comparisons on time only can be misleading at times. During the years I noticed that the "good" speed-up ideas are the ones that produce a clear positive pattern of more that 60-70% faster nodes. >Also regarding the two nodes that ran much longer, did they also >search a proportionate number of extra nodes. I'm wondering >because I would have expected them to show up in the >"Nodes-Overview" section. The testing environment is ply-depth-based, all position always run the same iteration depth. >And finally, I'm also wondering if it would be advantageous to have >a "Time-Overview" section analogous to the score and nodes data, >(actually, it sounds like you may already have this in the other >analysis funtion you mentioned). You guessed right again. My best, Ed
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.