Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 16:50:15 09/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2004 at 17:47:27, martin fierz wrote: >On September 29, 2004 at 13:44:50, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>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!!!! > >sure: "terrible testing" :-) > >seriously: i changed my root move ordering and reported results in a) 2x40 games >against other engines and b) in ECMGCP testsuite. ed made the statement i quoted >above. > >he says: if you only change move ordering, you should keep a testset handy which >you search to fixed depth, and where you can compare how move ordering affects >the node count on your test set. best not to compare total nodes, because one >bad position can skew your results, take e.g. #of positions with less nodes vs >#of positions with more nodes; or take the geometric mean over the test set of >newnodes/oldnodes. > >this is much a better test of move ordering, because it does not rely on your >engine accidentally finding or not finding a certain move. > >that is what ed says, and i believe he is right :-) > >hmm, i could have written this to start with and spared us a lot of >ping-pong-posts ;-) > >cheers > martin Yes -- I remember Ed's comments -- I plan to implement it. Another one is Bob's idea to complete 1 ply searches but let the current ply finish before returning. Good stuff. Stuart
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.