Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 10:44:50 09/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2004 at 08:22:38, martin fierz wrote: >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 Refresh me -- I already spent too much time at this forum!!!!
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.