Author: martin fierz
Date: 06:02:51 09/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2004 at 08:00:56, Ed Schröder wrote: [snip] >300 positions is a bit overdone, I think 200 is good enough. It's my experience >with move-ordering that a new move-ordering idea is only an improvement when the >idea produces less nodes/time most of time, a steady behaviour. It's not such a >good idea to test 200 positions and decide on the total nodes (time) searched. >For instance, when 130 positions (65%) of the positions produce fewer nodes and >the total nodes (time) is higher then the change most of the time is an >improvement after all. well, i have 76 positions in my test file now. still not 100 or 200 but already much better than 33. i always compute the geometric mean of nodes_new/nodes_old over the test set and do not compare total nodes or total time. so i do something similar as you suggest. >Nowadays testing is a pain, in the early days with processors running at 5Mhz >not exceeding 2000 elo at 40/2h testing was easy, an improvement could be >measured with the naked eye soto say, but how do you measure an improvement when >your program is playing at 2700? How do you measure the difference between 2700, >2690 and 2710 when your own level is only 1700-1800? that should put me in a much better position, with my level being 2300 and that of my program far from 2700 :-) 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.