Author: Will Singleton
Date: 16:23:43 05/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 1999 at 17:53:49, Andrew Williams wrote: >On May 19, 1999 at 15:01:20, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On May 18, 1999 at 21:20:10, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>>On May 18, 1999 at 09:29:52, Andrew Williams wrote: >>> >>>>On May 18, 1999 at 09:08:45, Steffen Jakob wrote: >>>> >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>>> >>>>>A different thing: currently I experiment with using the number of searched >>>>>nodes for each move in the root search to sort the move list. I know that Bob >>>>>and Bruce are doing this too. Anybody else? Any experiences? >>>>> >>>>>Greetings, >>>>>Steffen. >>>> >>>>I tried this and it didn't help me much. My approach is to retain the list >>>>of moves at the root and keep track of the score for each one. This is a bit >>>>more complex, but it works well for my program. >>>> >>>>Andrew >>> >>>I use the method given by Steffen. Seems to result in better move ordering for >>>me. btw, how do you get the score for root moves that aren't the best move? >>> >>>Will >> >>I do not know how Andrew does it, but you could fake your program out into >>thinking the root node was each position one ply down (temporarily) and getting >>an "actual" score for each move that way (but this may mess up a lot of your >>other search code). >> >>KarinsDad :) > > >Hi Will, KD. > >What I did was just to use the score that came back. And of course, this >shouldn't work very well. But it's just one of those things in my program >that seemed to work even if I knew intellectually that it ought not to. >BUT I've just reimplemented the nodes trick. I tried a few test sets and >got no real difference. A 120-game match against my original program, >however, resulted in a big win for the nodes version (which I now suspect >I implemented incorrectly before). I'll try a longer game with longer times >later on to see if I can confirm this result. So once again, a discussion >in CCC results in a potential improvement for PostModernist. Thanks, Will. > >Andrew > I've had similar results, that is, improvements don't necessarily show up on the test suites. I'm currently running a test version of Amateur against the current one, testing the effect of reducing or eliminating extensions on null move branches. Too early to tell yet. Also, do most folks call eval() at interior nodes, for the purpose of obtaining a score for various selective cuts? Will > >PS allow me to go off-topic for a moment > >MANCHESTER CITY 1 WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 (CITY WIN 2-1 ON AGGREGATE) > >WEMBERLY, WEMBERLY, WE'RE THE FAMOUS MAN CITY AND WE'RE GOING TO WEMBERLEY! >(repeat ad nauseum at the top of your voice) > >Moderators, you can moderate this message into oblivion, if you like. >I don't care because City are going to WEMBLEY! > Hmmmm... so is it Wembley or Wemberly or Wemberley? ;) I remember I used to get excited about baseball, but when so-so pitchers get $100,000,000 multi-year contracts, then make excuses for not performing, well... anyway, you're right, it's off-topic. I think we ought to have an off-topic section, as someone has suggested. Will
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.