Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 12:18:22 01/01/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2006 at 11:11:51, Robert Hyatt 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 > > >Were I guessing, I'd guess there is no counting of any kind for q-search nodes. >And if he uses a search to sort the ply-1 move list (as I do) then that search >(captures-only) is huge for this position, before I even get to the iteration-1 >search depth. Hello. Of course, but why hide (not count) the qsearch? Maybe pretending to be a slow search implies more knowledge which makes people think that is where all the strength is coming from. Or something else? Confused, -elc.
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.