Ovyron wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:25 am
Thanks Mike! These are exciting times for analysis!
latest test results getting better
all games 8 mi n with 4.8 sec inc
Code: Select all
Current date : time (EDST)
Date: 03/21/20 : 11:16:30
Rank Name Rating Δ + - # Σ Σ% W L D W% =% OppR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Honey-dev-032120 3554 0.0 11 11 683 347.5 50.9 63 51 569 9.2 83.3 3548
2 Stockfish-032120 3552 1.7 11 11 684 345.5 50.5 71 64 549 10.4 80.3 3549
3 Stockfish-031420 3544 8.7 11 11 683 332.0 48.6 58 77 548 8.5 80.2 3553
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.dropbox.com/s/po89jovub1qcf ... a.txt?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/po89jovub1qcf ... a.txt?dl=0
only change from most recent source above:
Code: Select all
@@ -621,7 +621,7 @@ int ct = int(ctempt) * (int(Options["Contempt_Value"]) * PawnValueEg / 100); //
#ifdef Add_Features
int profound = 0;
if (Options["Profound"]) {
@@ -621,7 +621,7 @@ int ct = int(ctempt) * (int(Options["Contempt_Value"]) * PawnValueEg / 100); //
#ifdef Add_Features
int profound = 0;
if (Options["Profound"]) {
- profound = 750 * pow(2, int(Options["Profound"]));
+ profound = 2000 * pow(2, int(Options["Profound"]));
sync_cout << "profound: " << profound <<sync_endl;
}
//sync_cout << "Contempt MG: " << dctcp << sync_endl;// for debug
MichaelB7@
+ profound = 2000 * pow(2, int(Options["Profound"]));
sync_cout << "profound: " << profound <<sync_endl;
}
//sync_cout << "Contempt MG: " << dctcp << sync_endl;// for debug
other settings tested and failed:
profound = 375 * pow(2, int(Options["Profound"]));
profound = 1125 * pow(2, int(Options["Profound"]));
profound = 1500 * pow(2, int(Options["Profound"])); about even
profound = 1825 * pow(2, int(Options["Profound"])); got worse
profound = 2400 * pow(2, int(Options["Profound"])); bad
I have seen this before where steady increases - can go:
better , better , top, worse, worse
or oscillates:
better worse better worse better worse - this function oscillates , so by the time I am done, the best line of code could be nowhere near where I am at right now
Edit - once you have identified an oscillating pattern, and after about 10/12 runs, one can estimate as to where the next peak should be and then you start testing estimated peak values - so my next test will be around 3200 or - at it appears to be about 1200 or so difference in peaks