Author: Angrim
Date: 23:03:44 06/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2004 at 11:30:19, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >Hi -- I threw together a quick chess program in the past 3 >weeks to do some research and recently added a testsuite >capability to at least get some measure of QA for changes. > >I then ran testsuite on the program at about 12-13 seconds >per move against Win-at-Chess (300 positions) on a slow >(for these days) PC (1ghz P3 w/ 512mb). > >To my surprise, Verified Null Move with R=3 scored better >without transposition table than with. Transposition table was >set to 0.5M entries in all cases. > >See below where #3 result is greater than all the others. >It's puzzling to me why transposition table should reduce >the result for #3 down to the level of #5. > >Has anyone else seen this with their program or programs >in general? It is most puzzling/counter-intuitive to me. > >1. ***** base/plain/no nullmove/no transposition/no optimizations ***** >*** Test score: 61% correct (183 out of 300) >*** Grand total nodes: 440075104 time: 3868.21 >*** Average nodes/time/nps per test position: 1466917 13 113767 > >2. ****** opt trans ******* >*** Test score: 67% correct (203 out of 300) >*** Grand total nodes: 620892160 time: 3635.11 >*** Average nodes/time/nps per test position: 2069640 12 170804 So with transposition tables, your engine got 50% more nodes per second? Something is very wrong here. No need to even look at the null move stuff to see that. I think you have some debugging to do. Angrim
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.