Author: Rick Bischoff
Date: 05:25:04 09/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
It is probably blank after a certain ply because of your hash table-- e.g., you are getting a good draft for your depth with an exact hit... I suppose if it bothers you, you could just walk the hash table line like you do now and append it. Incidentally, I left my program running all night and I see that it solved it at ply 12 in 1324898 seconds which is not very good ;-( >For me -- 95 seconds is good. Note the double variation is first the >regular pv[] triangular array if any and then the walk-the-pv method. >For some reason WAC 141 really kills my triangular array pv[] and I >do not know why. You see in most cases above it is blank. > >My WAC problem was that after my quiescence went back into the main >search since quiescence node on entry was in check, I had not >completely disabled all main search extensions. I have disabled >all of those now and got the better result. The reason I did this >was David's comment about "all his extensions" and then another >comment about someone going to main search from quiescence incheck >situation with depth=0. > >What was killing me was the additional recapture extensions after >an incheck extension *** at the same ply*** due to the above bug. >The bug had been there since nearly the beginning of the program >in June. > >I know this is nothing compared to what others are solving >WAC 141 in but consider that my machine is probably 3x-5x slower >than your machines so I am really getting Qxf4 in 18-30 seconds >on that type of machine, so I am okay on WAC 141 now. I won't >be buying a newer faster computer until I can get a 64-bit box >that totally dusts this 1ghz P3. I.e. at least >=5x faster on >my program (I go to CostCo and test out the systems with my program.) > >However, since I had to enable the recapture extension to do this, >my test result on WAC is about 8-9 positions fewer correct. > >I did the above without a Botvinnik-Markoff extension and without >a Mate-Threat extension and with no checking moves in the quiescence >search. > >For the above I use only recapture extension and check evasion >moves in the main search and quiescence and one-reply extension in >main seach. I don't even hash the null position and do not store >any kind of threat information as mate-threat is not used. > >I think most people solved the above problem with elaborate methods >of various extensions but I now don't see why that is necessary. >I have needlessly been suffering due to a) not turning off extensions >after handoff from incheck extension in quiescence over to main search >with new search depth of 1 and b) having a slower machine than others. > >It was a bug in the *** existing code ***. Truly when Ernst Heinz said >that every computer chess program was a cornucopia of possible discovery, >he understated it signifcantly still. :-) > >Stuart
This page took 0.05 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.