Author: Alessandro Damiani
Date: 06:48:22 01/01/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2006 at 08:53:35, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 01, 2006 at 07:46:50, Alessandro Damiani wrote: > >>On January 01, 2006 at 06:12:31, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 01, 2006 at 05:24:30, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >>> >>>>On January 01, 2006 at 02:36:28, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 31, 2005 at 20:50:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 31, 2005 at 20:20:47, Greg Simpson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Vasik had very logical and persuave ideas. I particularly liked the point that >>>>>>>trading one third speed searching for twenty times the evauation per position >>>>>>>almost has to be good if done right. >>>>>> >>>>>>If that describes what he's doing then it seems however Vasik has taken the >>>>>>other way around, the junior way. The utmost minimum of knowledge in leafs. >>>>> >>>>>I do not understand this comparison. >>>>> >>>>>Rybka is a slow searcher and Junior is a fast searcher. >>>>>What is the reason that you think that rybka has minimum of knowledge in leafs? >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>How do you know Rybka is a slow searcher? Just by looking at its obfuscated >>>>nps?? For instance, in >>>> >>>>[D]8/8/pppppppK/NBBR1NRp/nbbrqnrP/PPPPPPPk/8/Q7 w - - 0 1 >>>> >>>>do you really think it takes quite long to find the mate in 1 because of a huge >>>>static analysis? ;) >>>> >>>>Alessandro >>> >>>In this case it does not show nodes per second but in the following position >>>it shows nodes per second >>> >>>[D]8/8/pppppppK/NBBRQNRp/nbbrqnrP/PPPPPPPk/8/8 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>Analysis by Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit: >>> >>>1.dxe4 >>> +- (2.46) Depth: 3 00:02:22 >>>1.dxe4 >>> +- (2.46) Depth: 4 00:03:01 >>>1.dxe4 dxe5 >>> +- (2.46) Depth: 5 00:05:22 >>>1.Qxd4 Qxd5 >>> +- (2.77) Depth: 5 00:06:16 >>>1.Qxd4 dxc5 2.Qxe4 >>> +- (3.06) Depth: 6 00:08:19 4kN >>>1.Qxd4 dxc5 2.Qxe4 Bxd5 >>> +- (3.06) Depth: 7 00:12:59 18kN >>> >>>(, 01.01.2006) >>> >>>For some reason it searches only 4000 nodes in 499 seconds. >>>This really seem strange that static analysis takes so much time >>> >>>I could believe 100,000 nodes per seconds on My A3000 and even 10,000 nodes per >>>seconds but less than 10 nodes per second is even too much for me to believe. >>> >>>It seems that Vasik searches many nodes in what he counts as nodes. >>>Maybe he is using different function and not using his normal makemove in the >>>qsearch but it is clear that he searches a lot of legal moves inside of what he >>>considers as evaluation so I cannot consider it as evaluation. >>> >>>I think that static analysis can consider trapped pieces so you can consider >>>some moves without making them to check for trapped pieces but what I see in >>>rybka is clearly too much for what I consider as static analysis. >>> >>>I think that recursive search of moves with more than one move per side cannot >>>be considered as part of the evaluation. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Exactly. Static analysis is a 0-ply search, search being an operation which uses >>making/unmaking of moves. >> >>With my previous message I wanted to say this: you cannot imply from low nps >>that an engine is a slow searcher. For instance, by just not counting quiescence >>nodes an engine will have a low nps. >> >>Alessandro > >I agree but I do not see a reason not to count qsearch nodes and the author did >not admit that he does not count qsearch nodes and it seems to me based on his >posts that he counts every node in his search so I was surprised to find out >that he does not do it. > >I did not want to believe GCP that rybka does not count qsearch nodes because I >assumed that Vasik knows more about rybka and I assume that he does not give >misinformation but it seems that I was wrong and GCP was right. > >Not finding the mate fast is no proof for not counting nodes in the qsearch but >the small number of nodes in the next diagram is certainly a proof that the >number of nodes can be very small(less than 10 nodes per second) and searching >less than 10 nodes per second cannot be explained by something that is not >recursive search and not something equivalent to recursive search. > >Uri I agree. Everyone cooks with water......mmh, maybe I should use my steamer to improve my engine..... :) Alessandro
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.