Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 07:18:45 08/12/04
Here is the result of the 30 second per position test on 300 positions using nothing, see>=0 to search a capture, see having to bring the score within alpha and a margin (futility/delta), and with both. Nothing $ ./qaNbatch HERALD ga nosee30300.log 30 300 **** 9.98/35.29 85% 255/300 7183.08 1793586432 5978621/24/249696 0/0/104784432/0 /0/0 see>=0 to search a capture HERALD ga -DSEEQUIESCE seequiesce30300.log 30 300 **** 10.14/31.88 85% 257/300 7144.92 1599515136 5331717/24/223868 0/0/52093584/0 /0/0 see bringing score within alpha and a margin (futility/delta) HERALD ga -DDELTAPRUNE seedelta30300.log 30 300 **** 9.98/35.27 85% 255/300 7183.00 1783053568 5943512/24/248232 0/0/104211232/0 /0/0 delta HERALD ga -DSEEQUIESCE -DDELTAPRUNE seeboth.log 30 300 **** 10.14/31.87 85% 257/300 7144.30 1600962560 5336542/24/224089 0/0/52147264/0 /0/0 $ So -DSEEQUIESCE and -DSEEQUIESCE -DDELTAPRUNE are the best with identical ply-depth scores of 10.14 ply and very nearly equal maximum capture-search depth of 31.88 and 31.87 plies. Other measurements are very similar as well. Neither nor both is much of an improvement over not having both, at least in this short test, however the search tree is smaller and the depth is 1/5 of a pawn deeper so those are good signs. The total nodes searched dropped by 10% but so did the nodes per second. Probably a better test than fixed time is fixed depth. On those, I've seen the SEEQUIESCE (see>=0 for capture search) look at 50% fewer nodes in 50% less time as predicted by others. Not so sure about SEEDELTA. They don't seem as additive as I had hoped. However my SEEDELTA is implemented with a fixed MARGIN value of 1/5 of a pawn. I'll try it with the varying maximum positional score for the side on move and see if that improves things. I doubt it will make much of a difference. 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.