Author: martin fierz
Date: 04:29:54 09/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2004 at 06:36:04, Ed Schröder wrote: >On September 25, 2004 at 04:24:46, martin fierz wrote: > >>aloha! >> >>i made a small experiment: old root move ordering vs new root move ordering. >> >>old: >>generate all moves. do not order. use normal search and after each completed ply >>(or fail high) move the current best move to the top of the list and shift all >>moves back. >> >>new: >>generate all moves. do not order. use normal search and after each completed ply >>(or fail high) move the current best move to the top of the list and order the >>remaining moves by subtree size. >> >>results on centrino 1.4GHz: >>- test set ECMGCP 5s/move: old 107/183 solved, new 103/183 solved >> >>- matches at blitz 1'+5'' increment vs frenzee & gothmog: >>old: 8-32 against gothmog, 21-19 against frenzee >>new: 7-33 against gothmog, 20-20 against frenzee > >This is a terrible way of testing. i feel stupid :-) in fact, i have a test mode in my program which does exactly what you suggest (only my test file doesn't have enough positions yet i'm afraid). the result on 33 positions is new = 100.9% of old nodes searched. i will increase the number of positions and report back. thanks for pointing out how stupid my test is! in my defence i will say that as a working citizen, i don't lose time by performing such a test - the match runs over night and while i work; for a professional chess programmer it is probably more important to do tests fast, i can make more tests than programming, for you it was probably the other way round. doesn't change that you are right of course! cheers martin
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.