Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Correction, Sorry Re: Is the NPS tend to grow at the end of the game?

Author: leonid

Date: 14:01:37 07/24/00

Go up one level in this thread

On July 24, 2000 at 14:22:16, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote:

>On July 23, 2000 at 23:33:35, leonid wrote:
>>On July 23, 2000 at 21:08:04, Eelco de Groot wrote:
>>>Sorry, I believe I got it wrong and hash-table hits don't count for NPS, so that
>>>"more transpositions" effect can't be read from the nps numbers and also the
>>>part of my post about Crafty's EGTBs doesn't make much sense then.
>>>Transpositions wouldn't show up in NPS. But if Leonid was more looking at
>>>differences in solution times with few or many pieces on the board and if he
>>>doesn't have transposition/hash tables implemented yet in his program, the
>>>higher number of transpositions because of the few pieces on the board would be
>>>a likely explanation for commercial programs being faster there.  In solution
>>>times at least, that is.
>>Just by curiosity, I went to try on Rebel and Fritz 6 (from Hiarcs 7.32) few
>>positions. In Rebel I was capable to see the NPS counter without any hash table
>>and later (same position) with big hash table. Difference was only in some 2%.
>>With Fritz it was more difficult and less perfect, since you can't cut its hash
>>100%. Anyway, with Fritz I saw the same trend. Hash (after 5 positions that I
>>tried) change almost in nothing NPS.
>Hi Leonid,
>	«the Game» needs a transposition table. It will make wonders for it.

Saludos Jose,

I am not against transpositional tables but I wanted to see what influence they
have on NPS in every program. Bob H. said that there was no influence. I tried
to see what it as in real life. After my few trial, Bob H. was completely right.


This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.