Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: SEE results

Author: Stuart Cracraft

Date: 18:52:28 08/10/04

Go up one level in this thread


On August 10, 2004 at 10:35:29, Anthony Cozzie wrote:

>On August 10, 2004 at 09:35:19, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>
>>Enclosed please find SEE results for SEE in quiescence
>>(SEE >= 0 to search a capture), SEE in all move sorting
>>(both quiescence and main search - move score is see() value
>>plus a centrality value plus history heuristic for captures,
>>for non-captures only centrality value plus history heuristic)
>>and lastly SEE for both of the above.
>>
>>No SEE:
>>
>>$ ./qaNbatch 30 300
>>HERALD ga nosee.log 30 300
>>**** 9.97/35.22 85% 255/300 7187.14 1756630528 5855435/24/244413 0/0/102630520/0
>>/0/0
>>
>>SEE in Quiescence
>>
>>HERALD ga -DSEEQUIESCE seequiesce.log 30 300
>>**** 10.13/31.83 85% 257/300 7147.18 1572046592 5240155/24/219953 0/0/51211448/0
>>/0/0
>>
>>SEE in move sorting
>>
>>HERALD ga -DSEESORT seesort.log 30 300
>>**** 9.53/35.23 82% 246/300 7267.69 1423642368 4745475/24/195887 0/0/85531800/0/
>>0/0
>>
>>SEE in both quiescence and move sorting
>>HERALD ga -DSEEQUIESCE -DSEESORT seeboth.log 30 300
>>**** 9.81/32.28 84% 253/300 7207.02 1331241728 4437472/24/184715 0/0/43808052/0/
>>0/0
>>
>>The bottom line result is that the average depth reached was 1/5 ply deeper
>>using just SEE in quiescence compared with no see and this was good enough for a
>>slightly higher (<1%) test score result.
>>
>>Other uses of see in move sorting and for both did not do as well as for just
>>limiting the capture search.
>
>Move ordering in general is more important as depth increases.  If a move
>ordering change decreases nodes by 5% at depth 6, that means an entire ply at
>depth 14 ;)
>
>Plus, if you have only PST eval you should be getting 3-4M nps, so SEE probably
>slows you down a _lot_.  Once you get a more complex engine you will find that
>SEE move ordering is critical.
>
>anthony

I don't know what kind of PC's you guys have but I don't think my
implementation is *that* bad to get only 1/11th of the speed you expect
for PST.

Unless I'm missing something really major in the search implementation.



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.