Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: New (??) cut-heuristic

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 10:30:22 12/30/98

Go up one level in this thread



On December 30, 1998 at 08:33:08, Frank Schneider wrote:

>Some more results:
>
>correct / nodes	|n=infinite	|n=15		|n=10		|n=5
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Standard #6	|23 / 8306851	|22 / 6616146	|25 / 6229700	|24 / 5852685
>WAC #6		|256 / 13428654	|254 / 11575072	|253 / 10977570	|253 / 10987063
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Standard #7	|25 / 26399528	|20 / 20759570	|		|
>WAC #7		|280 / 35352959	|274 / 30579448	|		|
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>As expected it doesn't look good anymore. Are there possible refinements?

I don't think you are looking at the right thing, so I don't think you can tell,
yet.

Obviously what you want to be doing is seeing if there is an improvement in real
games, but this is very hard to measure, I think.

I think that if you want to test tactical speed, which is what I think you want
here, what you should is run this against a big tactical suite, for a fixed
*time* per position.  What you are doing is running for a fixed depth, so what
you've shown is that you don't get as many right if you give your new version
like 20-25% less time than the old version.  A fixed-depth comparison will tend
to discriminate against pruning heuristics and reward extension heuristics.

Also, I think it makes sense to break things down into one-second bins.  Here is
an example, a comparison between my program from about a year ago, and my most
recent version, using the ECM suite run for 20 seconds per position:

####  378  524
---- ---- ----
0001  375  408
0002  428  465
0003  458  497
0004  481  516
0005  503  539
0006  509  549
0007  519  564
0008  533  571
0009  540  580
0010  549  583
0011  553  589
0012  558  593
0013  563  596
0014  571  601
0015  575  606
0016  581  612
0017  587  614
0018  589  619
0019  594  623
0020  600  625

It's very clear from this that the newer one is tactically faster, much more
clear, in my opinion, than just comparing 600 with 625.

bruce



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.