Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 12:49:43 09/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 1999 at 14:40:00, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On September 06, 1999 at 10:51:55, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>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). >> >>Is this the norm for programs? What PostModernist does is to increment abNodes, >>then check if there are any extensions. If (after taking into account any >>extensions) we're out of depth, I *decrement* abNodes and call quiesce(..), >>which increments qNodes as its first step. Total nodes is then abNodes+qNodes, >>and nodes are not counted twice in this scheme. > >I do it exactly like you. I think that is sort of the norm now. I think Crafty >does it too. Remains the point: do you count illegal moves, or not? I do count >them. I know some who don't. I forgot to answer this part. Yes I do count illegal nodes. Regards Andrew >>>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? >>> >> >>As you say, it's often comparing apples and oranges. But if we all counted >>nodes in exactly the same way, we'd have taken one variable out of the equation >>when comparing programs. > >I agree. > >Regards, > >Bas Hamstra. > >> >>Andrew Williams >> >> >>> >>> >>>Regards, >>>Bas Hamstra. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>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.