Author: martin fierz
Date: 05:22:38 09/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2004 at 23:49:01, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >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. good - then i hope you also remember what ed had to say about a similar experiment of mine! cheers martin
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.