Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:24:13 09/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2004 at 12:15:44, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >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 I think that it is a mistake and having queen promotion in the qsearch should help you. Uri
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.