Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 08:09:23 03/14/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2005 at 10:05:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 14, 2005 at 09:32:55, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >>can anyone tell me whether there has ever been a study on the actual needed >>aspiration window sizes? The only thing I am only reading is that "it is common >>knowledge" and "it is known" concerning Aspiration Windows. And Crafty is using >>0.40*PAWN_VALUE because it seemed to perform best. But is there actual data >>somewhere? >> >>Cheers! >> >>Renze > > >That is "actual data". Take your program, and try different values, over a >large test set of positions. Find the range that produces the greatest average >search depth for the test set. It will vary for each program, since the >evaluation functions can produce wildly variable scores... Not only is very program different , but even different versions of the smae program. When a program has a solid a evalualtion, I think you can make it tighter -- I have often used .35 with different versions of Crafty. In fact I think that may have been the Crafty standard earlier). Also if you tone down the positional points available, you can also tighten up the window. To answe your question, I don;t beleive there is published data, but I suspect some of the professional programmers have their own data and for obvious reason are not in a position to share.
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.