Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 23:21:07 03/06/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2006 at 00:01:31, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>On March 06, 2006 at 23:55:17, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On March 06, 2006 at 23:39:36, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>>
>>>On March 06, 2006 at 22:47:18, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>
>>>>On March 06, 2006 at 22:13:56, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>>Discouraging Dan. Discouraging.
>>>>
>>>>Suppose that you are 3 lines away from approximately the same result.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, I have had a crafty version score 300/300 with the same time controls.
>>>>
>>>>The only difficult problem in this set is WAC.230.
>>>>
>>>>I think that WAC is a great set to start working with on a chess engine.
>>>>After a few months you are going to graduate to something tougher.
>>>>
>>>>I guess that there is some simple bug that is costing you 80% or more of the
>>>>misses.
>>>>
>>>>It sounds like an advanced engine from the things I have read so far.
>>>>
>>>>I think I saw a list of the missed problems by your program. I guess that I may
>>>>see a theme problem when I go over them.
>>>
>>>Thanks - I look forward to those comments at your availability.
>>>
>>>I reran the whole 300 suite at 10 seconds each this evening,
>>>due to Bob's comment, and pulled the failed 29 (Bob failed 9
>>>I believe.)
>>>
>>>Then I reran against just my 29 and found that only 24 failed the
>>>second time, at the same time control.
>>>
>>>This tells me that there is something about the test that is not
>>>reproducible, based on either the ordering of the tests in the suite
>>>or aspects being carried from test position to test position (hash
>>>tables, history heuristic, etc.) I am not sure what it is.
>>>
>>>To test this theory, I took the 29 that failed of which only 24 failed
>>>the second time and reversed them so that the last came first and retested.
>>>This time 4 of the 29 were solved instead of 5. This difference of one is
>>>too small to claim an ordering result for just 29 position sample size.
>>>
>>>Still this indicates that instead of failing 29 I am failing 24-25
>>>and I am not sure what would cause it. Before every iterative deepening
>>>ply 1 search, I clear out the history heuristic table, the hash tables,
>>>and the principal variation arrays.
>>>
>>>Still that is only 4-5 more leaving 24-25 left, arguably 15-16 if one
>>>wants to aspire as high as Crafty.
>>>
>>>I am at a total roadblock on the subject. As I mentioned, I will be
>>>putting money where my mouth is and making a signficant donation to
>>>the board sponsors for guidance to a solution of gaining say another
>>>10 right above my current 271 at 10 seconds. (Hopefully that's legal
>>>here.)
>>
>>This sounds like a bug.
>>If you analyze a new position, you should definitely clear the hash table
>>between analysis runs.
>
>** I do. I also start by initializing the random number generator identically
>each time.
>
> If the results are not exactly the same time after time,
>>then there is a bug (unless you introduce randomness or use floating point for
>>your eval or other odd things like that).
>
>** I do use floating point for the evaluation. This is a relic of something
>** that can be pulled out of the program if it is a really bad thing. Bob
>** has said it is due to floating points always being off.
>
Floats just for eval or also all bounds and scores backed up to the root?
SSE floats or doubles under w64 are quite efficient, for instance you (or your
compiler) can work with vectors of four floats per instruction.
Is your nullwindow {alfa, alfa+1.0} or something like {alfa, alfa+1.0e-10}?
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.