Author: KarinsDad
Date: 22:19:48 09/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 1999 at 22:31:57, Will Singleton wrote: [snip] > >So, as I understand it, you are suggesting that the time it takes to generate 2 >complete pv's (or more) is less than incorporating a pawn structure eval in a >normal (single pv) eval. > >It would seem to me that in order to get 2 good pv's to the same depth would >require twice the time as one pv. Of course, I'm on my second vodka & tonic, so >maybe I'm missing something. > >Will Yes, that is basically what I am suggesting. However, since my search algorithm is different, I'm assuming that it will not take twice as long for a second PV, but maybe 2% to 5% longer (this is a guess not based on any empirical data yet) since the definition of a PV in my algorithm is merely the best n moves found in the normal search (which takes x amount of time regardless of which moves are finally determined to be PV and sub-PV moves) extended somewhat in an attempt to ensure some measure of correctness (or stability). And, as you state, some of the overall time can be saved by doing the more complex and slower pawn structure evals just for the leaves of the PVs calculated and not for every node evaluated (although any simple quick pawn structure evals probably belong in the normal eval). I am not sure how standard Alpha Beta works for PVs, but if you tell me that searching a second PV takes just as long as searching the first PV, I will take your word for it. KarinsDad :)
This page took 0.01 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.