Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 13:34:30 09/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2004 at 12:24:13, Uri Blass wrote: >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 My code has this as conditional compilation flag. It is normally disabled since it did not help test result. I will retest to be sure since there were some big fixes in the search and big jump in test result since last test of this flag. 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.