Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:05:13 09/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2004 at 13:50:34, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >On September 28, 2004 at 10:45:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 28, 2004 at 05:17:26, Peter Fendrich wrote: >> >>>On September 27, 2004 at 23:45:54, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >>> >>>>I experimented with reordering root ply at iterative depth iply > 1 >>>>where 1 is the root ply, with the results of iply-1 sorted by the >>>>total nodes of quiescence and main search defined as the # of entries >>>>for each of those subroutines. >>>> >>>>I didn't sort at root node on the first sort by quiescence but instead >>>>by my normal scheme though I tried quiescence and it was worse. I felt >>>>this gave a better chance to the above method. >>>> >>>>I sorted moves at the root ply for iply > 1 in the following way >>>>for 7 different parts to the experiment. >>>> >>>> sort by normal method (history heuristic, mvv/lva, see, etc. >>>> sort exactly by subtree node count, nothing else >>>> sort by subtree node count added to normal score (hh, mvv/lva, see, etc.) >>>> same as previous but node count x 10 before addition >>>> same as previous but node count x 100 before addition >>>> same as previous but node count x 1000 before addition >>>> same as previous but node count x 10000 before addition >>>> >>>>The results, measured by # right on Win-at-Chess varied from >>>>250 for the first in the list above to 234 for the last. >>>>Most bunched up between 244-247 except the first was 250, >>>>my current best on WAC with handtuning everything. >>>> >>>>For me, I'm convinced that this style of sorting root ply is >>>>slightly less good for my short searches compared to what I am using: >>>>a combination of history, heuristic, see(), and centrality with >>>>various bonuses, about a half page of code sprinkled about. >>>> >>>>The advantage of sorting root node by subtree is the simplicity. >>>>It eliminates about a half a page of code and introduces >>>>about a quarter page of code for only slightly lesser results >>>>(within 1-2% of my current result) so that is good. >>>> >>>>Still I think I'll leave it #ifdefed out for now and use it as >>>>a baseline that is only improvable upon with handtuning of my >>>>current methods and others to be discovered. >>>> >>>>Stuart >>> >>>I've noticed that you often refer to WAC and also do very quick searches. >>>If you get 247 in one test and 250 in another that doesn't mean a thing >>>if you don't examine the positions that changed. Very often you will find that >>>the difference is due to random coincidents. >>>I'm sure that you could get such differences just by making some innocent change >>>somewhere in the code... >> >>Correct. Change the move ordering. Change the hash table order of storing >>things. Occasionally change the best move or score as a result. >> >>1 sec WAC runs is not the way to test for performance, particularly when 1 sec >>really means 1 sec +/- N where N is a non-trivial amount of quantization error >>in timing... >> > >Wouldn't the right way to test this be to search to a fixed depth and compare >node counts ? You would expect to get the same results except for equal evals or >nullmove hash table, or extension wierdness. Yes. Too many variables otherwise, including the fact that the operating system can vary your 1 second interval a bit itself due to quantization errors in the system clock...
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.