Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:23:30 08/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2004 at 13:20:11, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >All, > >SEE increases my nominal iteration depth by 0.42 pawns >given the same amount of time as a non-SEE search, all else > >SEE decreases my max quiescence depth reached (with a check handoff >to main search) by a little under 8 ply for the same problem set. > >These are the 300 positions from Win-at-Chess run at 1 second per >problem on an old, slow, notebook. I do not have comparative data >due to the subjectivity involved of chess games and the "feel of SEE". > >Legend: >Ave Iterative Depth/Average Max Search depth >% solved >Total solved / Total in test >Total time taken (300 seconds allowed) >Total Nodes searched >Average positions searched per problem / >Average time (rounded) per problem / >Average nodes per second per problem >0/0/Check Extensions from Quiescence back to Main Search/0/0 > >Without SEE > >**** 6.68/27.18 68% 204/300 269.05 54264704 180882/1/201692 0/0/3361112/0/0/0 > >With SEE > >**** 7.10/19.01 64% 193/300 267.44 46135172 153784/1/172505 0/0/1154026/0/0/0 > >Total problem solution rate drops 5.4% and nodes searched drops 14.98% > >(The SEE being used above was tried as (1) see < 0 then don't search >a capture move in quiescence and (2) see < delta where delta is calculated >with its margin off alpha as the maximum positional score so far in the >search for the side on move. The above results are the combination of both and >if only using the #2, assuming for example my SEE is not a great SEE, >the result is only slightly changed.) > >My question is, why should SEE reduce the tactical result so drastically >and is it safe to do so given the depth and nodes results are favorable? > >Thanks ahead, > >Stuart SEE should _help_ in tactics, not hurt. If it is hurting, there is something wrong somewhere...
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.