Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 20:49:01 09/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2004 at 16:29:29, martin fierz wrote: >On September 28, 2004 at 13:43:48, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>On September 28, 2004 at 08:44:04, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On September 28, 2004 at 08:19:15, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >>> >>>>On September 28, 2004 at 02:14:51, martin fierz 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 >>>>> >>>>>...as ed schröder said to me: "terrible testing". he was right, of course. >>>>> >>>>>cheers >>>>> martin >>>> >>>>Each to his own. >>> >>>if you get free advice from one of the world's best computer chess programmers >>>it is a good idea to use it. there's not much point writing tons of posts here >>>asking for advice if you don't listen.... >>> >>>cheers >>> martin >> >>Well, condemnations aside, without specific feedback beyond "Oh that's just >>bad" (I can get that at work from the boss or from relatives) -- I don't >>respond well to that kind of input. It is non-constructive. > >my post was meant very constructively :-) >i just posted something about root move ordering a day or two ago, and ed >schröder answered "terrible testing" with a short explanation of why. i expected >you had read that thread, and knew what i meant. if not, read it now! > >cheers > martin > >PS: if you are not in the habit of reading posts of some particular persons >(like ed, bob etc) on this board, you should get into that too! other people >have something to say too of course, but we do have some >world-class-chess-programmers here and i try to read everything they write... Believe me: I read every character, every sentence, every word, every comma, every dot of Ed S. and Bob H.
This page took 0.01 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.