Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 16:51:22 08/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2004 at 17:23:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... That is probably true unless you are doing extremely short searches in very short periods of time on a slow box. I guess people's admonishing me to go to longer searches and analyzing with games is understandable. Most people have said this. I can't do this because my research, in autotuning, requires short, fast searches on the order of <1 second. So I can't use the benefit of SEE or some other advances that require longer searches. I see them with longer searches, but I can't use them. It is all #ifdefed out. In time, given the inexorable progress of hardware, they'll be #ifdefed back in. I am grateful for all the input from yourself and everybody because it has greatly shortened the timeframe for a halfway decent base on which to build. Bbelieve me, I have enough trouble with my own code that I don't want to retrofit other code. I am not a crack programmer and have no idea where people get their ideas. Hope this clarifies my resistance and the reasoning behind it. Still looking for short, sharp enhancements for small trees but the time is approaching to change the course of this work and get to the real fun and out of the "Quagmire of Featuredom". 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.