Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 09:15:44 09/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2004 at 09:27:01, Henk Bossinade wrote: >On September 04, 2004 at 17:54:50, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>On September 03, 2004 at 09:47:26, Jan K. wrote: >> >>>You should look for bugs in your search....i find the move even with no >>>extensions but the threat extension set to 1/2 ply and no checks in qsearch. >>>Takes 60 seconds and almost the same number of nodes like your full search. >> >>I am not sure where else to look. >> >>With nothing other than hashing and null move, no extensions including >>no checking extensions no check-evasion extensions, etc., how many >>ply does it take your program to solve WAC 141? >> >>I *have* to have recapture extension enabled in order to solve it >>currently in anything approaching real-time. >> >>Stuart > >I get ply 9 with only hashing. Maybe your move ordering isn't optimal for WAC >141. > >(proc. VIA C3 700Mhz) > 4 0.05 -70 3741 Kg2f1 Nf4e2 Qc1d1 Qc7a5 > 4. 0.06 -70 4250 Kg2f1 Nf4e2 Qc1d1 Qc7a5 > 5 0.31 -70 15588 Kg2f1 Nf4d3 Qc1d2 Nd3e1 Qd2d1 > 5. 0.34 -70 20946 Kg2f1 Nf4d3 Qc1d2 Nd3e1 Qd2d1 > 6 0.84 -70 92728 Kg2f1 Nf4d3 Qc1d2 Nd3e1 Qd2d1 Qc7a5 > 6. 1.09 -70 104292 Kg2f1 Nf4d3 Qc1d2 Nd3e1 Qd2d1 Qc7a5 > 7 6.07 -70 533246 Kg2f1 Re8e2 Qc1b1 Re2d2 > 7. 6.59 -70 658602 Kg2f1 Re8e2 Qc1b1 Re2d2 > 8 17.44 -70 2165687 Kg2f1 Re8e2 Qc1b1 Re2d2 Rh1g1 Qc7a5 Bb3d1 Qa5b4 > 8. 21.14 -70 2381705 Kg2f1 Re8e2 Qc1b1 Re2d2 Rh1g1 Qc7a5 Bb3d1 Qa5b4 > 9 99.10 -70 6629614 Kg2f1 Re8e2 Qc1b1 Re2d2 > 9 169.96 ++ 12524259 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 > 9 240.97 260 22211001 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5 > 9. 240.98 260 22211008 Qc1xNf4 Bd6xQf4 Rh4xPh5 Pg6xRh5 > >Cuts : Null=0 Delta=0 SEE=0 Eval=0 Rzr=0 Xfut=0 Fut=0 >Ext. : Check=0 OneReply=0 Threat=0 Recap=0 RevCheck=0 Pawn=0 >Misc. : Hashprobes=12907069(10% hits) Moveorder=95% Bf=6.53 Nps=92171(53% qui) > Eval=11501487 What is your move ordering? Mine is: hash move or PV move all captures history heuristic scores centrality terms There is considerable overlap in the last three above. I have experimented with forcing SEE<0 of all captures down to the bottom but it did not speed up due to cost of SEE, over MVV/LVA, for me. I have experimented with killer moves (no improvement) and increasing the value of history heuristic over captures or vice versa to no avail. I have printed out the sorted move list at various ply and it appears reasonable to me. Nothing outlandishly wrong or even overtly. I don't handle a lot of special cases like promotions due to perceived rarity in the tree. 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.