Want to know what savings to expect with pruning methods...

[voyagerOne]

Right now my engine can reach up to ply 8 (not including Q search) in about 20 seconds on avg.

The only saving features I have is:
MVV/LVA move ordering and killer.

My question is does 8 ply at 20 seconds sound right? Is it too slow?

What type of savings can I expect with each?
Transposition Tables
PV-Search Pruning
Null Move
Aspiration windowing
futility

What do you guys recommend I should do next now?

Thanks in advance!

[Aleks Peshkov]

1) Qsearch
2) Iterative deepening with PV-move first
3) Transposition Table
4) Null-move

[diep]

Right now my engine can reach up to ply 8 (not including Q search) in about 20 seconds on avg.

The only saving features I have is:
MVV/LVA move ordering and killer.

My question is does 8 ply at 20 seconds sound right? Is it too slow?

What type of savings can I expect with each?
Transposition Tables
PV-Search Pruning
Null Move
Aspiration windowing
futility

What do you guys recommend I should do next now?

Thanks in advance!

How many positions per second is it searching? Or better: makemoves per second i'd argue.

[voyagerOne]

1) Qsearch
2) Iterative deepening with PV-move first
3) Transposition Table
4) Null-move

I already have 1 and 2.

So I assume I should do 3 next...

[voyagerOne]

How many positions per second is it searching? Or better: makemoves per second i'd argue.

Its averaged around 2500kns. It counts only legal moves that are played on the virtual board.

[JVMerlino]

How many positions per second is it searching? Or better: makemoves per second i'd argue.

Its averaged around 2500kns. It counts only legal moves that are played on the virtual board.

Do I read this right combined with other posts in the thread? You're doing 2.5 million nodes per second WITHOUT a transposition table and null move?



jm

[voyagerOne]

Do I read this right combined with other posts in the thread? You're doing 2.5 million nodes per second WITHOUT a transposition table and null move?



jm

Yes that is correct.
I wrote the program in JAVA...and my methods are somewhat unorthodox. Such as each piece has its own bitboard, among other things...

[JVMerlino]

Do I read this right combined with other posts in the thread? You're doing 2.5 million nodes per second WITHOUT a transposition table and null move?



jm

Yes that is correct.
I wrote the program in JAVA...and my methods are somewhat unorthodox. Such as each piece has its own bitboard, among other things...

Ok, one more question. Are you talking about the speed of your movegen plus make/unmake only (i.e. perft speed), or is this the speed of your full alpha-beta search?

jm

[voyagerOne]

Ok, one more question. Are you talking about the speed of your movegen plus make/unmake only (i.e. perft speed), or is this the speed of your full alpha-beta search?

alpha-beta search speed.

So its something like this...

Generate all moves;
if move is illegal Then
get next move

makeMove;

plyCount++;

[Mincho Georgiev]

How many positions per second is it searching? Or better: makemoves per second i'd argue.

Its averaged around 2500kns. It counts only legal moves that are played on the virtual board.

Do I read this right combined with other posts in the thread? You're doing 2.5 million nodes per second WITHOUT a transposition table and null move?



jm

I don't see anything unusual. Right now, my program with magics, simple /almost empty/ evaluation and basic search does 4000 kn/s /midgame/.
What settles that down is when the node get filled with some useful computation.
p.s. Don't forget the exact architecture!