Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:57:31 09/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2004 at 08:25:04, Rick Bischoff wrote: >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 ;-( You have one hell of a long night. As in maybe 2 weeks of nighttime. :) > >>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 0.04 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.