Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:32:28 08/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2004 at 09:33:07, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >Here are test results for 2 types of capture-search SEE >vs. none. The implementations are: > >BASICSEE - cut out all capture moves in quiescence search >that lose material according to SEE > >ADVANCEDSEE - search all moves to <2*iteration-depth, >search only non-losing captures to <3*iteration-depth >aearch only winning captures at 3*iteration-depth and >beyond. > >Unlabeled - do not use see > >I ran the 300 position test at 1 second per move, >5 seconds per move, and 300 seconds per move. > This is the wrong test to run. The point here is are you writing a program to solve tactical positions, or to play a complete game? Things that work well in one area don't always work well in the other... Also there is more left to do in your SEE stuff for q-search. If you reach a node where you are a queen down, capturing a free knight (see = +3.0) is worthless. >1 second per position - winner is NOSEE >// ga -DBASICSEE basicsee.log 1 300 >// **** 65% 197/300 265.16 56945056 189817/1/214757 0/0/1682491/0/0/0 >// ga -DADVANCEDSEE advsee.log 1 300 >// **** 67% 201/300 267.83 62793584 209312/1/234456 0/0/3669891/0/0/0 >// ga nosee.log 1 300 >// **** 67% 203/300 267.93 63503560 211679/1/237017 0/0/3939450/0/0/0 > >5 seconds per position - winner is BASIC SEE > >// ga -DBASICSEE basicsee.log 5 300 >// **** 78% 234/300 1247.66 274499200 914997/4/220012 0/0/7530247/0/0/0 >// ga -DADVANCEDSEE advsee.log 5 300 >// **** 74% 223/300 1254.51 301836992 1006123/4/240602 0/0/17363476/0/0/0 >// ga nosee.log 5 300 >// **** 75% 226/300 1256.89 301590304 1005301/4/239949 0/0/17803908/0/0/0 > >30 seconds per move - winner is BASIC SEE > >// ga -DBASICSEE basicsee.log 30 300 >// **** 86% 260/300 7138.30 1588310016 5294367/24/222505 0/0/44017136/0/0/0 >// ga -DADVANCEDSEE advsee.log 30 300 >// **** 85% 255/300 7204.46 1780278528 5934262/24/247108 0/0/103126448/0/0/0 >// ga nosee.log 30 300 >// **** 85% 255/300 7205.99 1784190464 5947302/24/247598 0/0/104540648/0/0/0 > >I plan a run tonight for using SEE to order all captures & as above with >BASIC SEE; however preliminary tests at short time controls did more >poorly than the current implementation with a simpler move ordering. > >SEE did not help me as much since my move ordering was already pretty good >since I rated all moves in my non-SEE implementation using a score derived >from MVV/LVA + History Historic + a Centrality term for captures. > >Stuart
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.