Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 22:58:41 04/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 1999 at 16:38:35, William Bryant wrote:
>On April 04, 1999 at 11:59:40, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On April 03, 1999 at 18:30:23, William Bryant wrote:
>>
>>>Are the results obtained on the LCTII depth dependent?
>>
>>Is the strength of a program depth dependant?
>>
>>Yes, of course.
>>
>>The combinations in the LCT-2 are quite easy, and depth 6-9 is generally enough.
>>Many programs of 300MHz processors will solve them in less than 30 seconds
>>(except CMB11 and CMB12, which are almost unsolvable).
>>
>>I have found that many of the positional problems need more depth (often 9-11).
>>
>>In the endgame positions you'll need both depth and a lot of knowledge
>>(especially for FIN08 and FIN09).
>>
>>
>>>I was rather
>>>disappointed in the initial score I obtained on the LCTII (score was 2120). I
>>>don't have Null Moves and was searching 8 to 10 ply on the positional tests, 7
>>>to 10 ply on the tactical tests, and 11 to 17 ply on the endgame tests.
>>>
>>>Is this an indication that the eval needs more work (which of course it does),
>>>or that Null moves, which should increase the search depth, are more likely to
>>>increase the strength of the program.
>>
>>Both.
>>
>>2120 without null move is already nice (on which processor?). Do you have some
>>kind of selectivity?
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>This is on a G3 - 266mhz (an 'old' G3). No selectivity yet.
>Just Alpha-Beta, Aspiration windows, PVS, Move Ordering.
>Null Moves are next, then egtb's, then opening book with an improvement in the
>eval along the way.
>
>William
>wbryant@ix.netcom.com
Okay. Good luck for the rest.
Christophe
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.