Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 17:00:04 04/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2000 at 18:28:51, Brian Richardson wrote: >On April 08, 2000 at 15:10:35, Severi Salminen wrote: > >>Hi! >> >>>Congratulations on getting your program playing. >> >>Thanx! >> >>> >>>Try adding piece square tables to your evaluation function--see TSCP >>>source for simple examples. This will make it much easier to direct >>>opening play and piece development. >> >> >>Well, I found the error (it's not so easy with assembler...) and now my program >>plays 1...e6 and I'm satisfied so far. >> >>BTW how fast "should" the program be? Mine calculates now some 40000 positions >>with Celeron 300Mhz. Is the NPS rating the actual number of positions evaluated >>per second or is it the total number (even those cut off with A-B)? >> >>Severi > >NPS is calculated differently in many programs, but I think it is generally the >total number of nodes visited during the search, but not including evaluations, >(which would be already counted as leaf nodes). NPS is not very useful as a >speed measure. However, it is useful to the programmer to compare various >versions of the same program. A more useful measure of speed would be the time >to reach certain depths for several test positions (starting, various midgame, >endgame). You could then compare your program's speed against several others >that you could download. TSCP would generally be the slowest, and you should >shoot for about 10x its speed. Crafty would be among the faster ones (but not Just to clarify: A good program will find the solution to a given problem ~10x faster than TSCP. (I don't think any program searches 10x as many NPS as TSCP.) -Tom
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.