Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 22:50:42 07/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 1999 at 16:19:24, Pat King wrote: >I recently ran a series of tests on SweetReason 1.7, my chess program, turning >on and off various features to determine their effect on search speed and >program strength. In general, I got expected results. Ie, my program appears to >gain 140 Elo points/ply, and the typically reported figure's about 200 (effect >of increased knowledge in evaluation?). The surprise came in evaluating the >check extension. Common sense would lead one (well, me) to expect the check >extension to increase strength and decrease speed. I had exactly the opposite >effect -- using check extension appears to drop 200 Elo points, but also reduce Yes, this is surprising! I have heard some people say bad things about check extensions though. I haven't done any good experiments with them lately, something else for the todo list... Are you sure you didn't have a bug? >the nodes visited in a fixed depth search by 40%! I can write off the Elo effect >to small sample size, but the other figure has enough data behind it to stand >up. Could the improved evaluation of "checky" positions cause enough cutoffs to >do this? what was your exact methodology? I assume you ran a bunch of test positions to a fixed depth? If so, which positions? What depth? I would be interested in trying to reproduce this result. peter
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.