Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:56:07 09/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 1999 at 10:09:57, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On September 06, 1999 at 07:41:01, blass uri wrote: > >>On September 06, 1999 at 07:05:03, blass uri wrote: >> >>>I know that nodes in some programs(like Junior) include illegal moves and my >>>question is if the same illegal moves are defined as nodes by all the programs. >> >>I am not sure about the definition of nodes about Junior but I am sure that >>Junior generate illegal moves and it discovers that they are illegal only by >>search so I guess that it does not count only legal moves as nodes. >> > >Another thing is: the natural way to count nodes is to put a nodes++ in the >search and in the qsearh. But then you double count the leafs of the normal >search (same node, same depth in search and qsearch). > >But: does it make sense to compare NPS between programs? Suppose one program >uses SEE pruning and the other program not. Now the program without SEE will >have a higher NPS. But does this comparison make any sense? > > > >Regards, >Bas Hamstra. > > > > > good point.. my 'see' pruning cuts the q-search by over 50%... that means that 1/2 of the moves I generate don't get searched. My NPS goes down, my total nodes goes down, but the depth goes up... > > >>Uri >> >>> >>>If the answer is negative then we cannot say that one program is a faster >>>searcher only because it searches more nodes per second. >>> >>>We need a clear definition of nodes to compare. >>> >>>Uri
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.