Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 03:40:39 09/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 1999 at 19:10:37, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On September 07, 1999 at 13:54:40, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On September 07, 1999 at 10:27:06, James Robertson wrote: >> >>>On September 07, 1999 at 09:01:34, Andrew Williams wrote: >> >>>>Using this scheme, what would you count if you enter a search node, check for >>>>extensions, find there are none and decide to go into the qsearch? One node >>>>or two? >>>> >>>>Andrew >>> >>>Er.... I think that case is impossible in my program. :) >> >>This kind of stuff is not impossible using the generic Thompson search/qsearch >>model. You can get a case where you call qsearch, notice that you are in check, >>and do "return search(...)", which would count a node for "qsearch", and another >>node for the recursive call into "search", even though only one node was really >>dealt with. This of course depends upon where you put the nodes++, which isn't >>present in the Thompson pseudo-code. > >Seems to me the simplest place to put nodes++ is in the MakeMove function. I can't really do that as I use my hash table for generating my PV and need to use make_move to walk up and down the PV at the end of iterations. I guess I could write a stripped down make_move, but I haven't really looked at that yet. Cheers Andrew > >> >>I think that one node should be counted in cases like these. If you end up >>counting a lot of nodes twice, you can be comparing with someone else who has >>written essentially the same program, and it looks like you are going faster. >> >>bruce
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.