Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:27:39 11/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 1998 at 09:49:34, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >On November 02, 1998 at 08:24:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>On November 02, 1998 at 02:49:14, Koen van Dijken wrote: >> >>>mr Hyatt, >>> >>>I was comparing the speed in nps of my own program against that of Crafty. I >>>have the sources for 14.2 and 15.20. I noticed that in Search there is a >>>difference in node counting between 14.2 and 15.20. In 14.2 you do not count >>>illegal moves, in 15.20 you do. Is there a reson for this? >>> >>>15.20 >>> } else tree->nodes_searched++; >>> UnMakeMove(tree,ply,tree->current_move[ply],wtm); >>> >>>Is this maybe the way nodecounting is done in other programs as well, for >better >>>comparising? >>> >>>Koen van Dijken. >> >> >>That was the main idea. However it turned out to have no effect... because now >>I increment nodes_searched at the top of search, and I *never* get there unless >>the position is "legal"... so for search() it doesn't matter. In quiesce, I >>do count illegal positions... but the point is counting "work" really... and if >>I do a MakeMove() and so forth, I "searched" that node whether it was legal or >>not. > >We do *not* count illegal positions for our NPS numbers. > >IMO counting illegal positions is not a good idea because they require so much >less work than legal nodes. Actually, there is not much to do beside >make/unmake move at illegal nodes. > >=Ernst= What about in the quiescence search? Do you cull illegal captures before making them? Or not count them when you notice they are illegal. I think counting or not-counting makes little difference overall since in my case, the number is already "mixed" since normal search weeds illegal moves out while the q-search does not...
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.