Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: How make Fritz execute brute force search?

Author: Tom Kerrigan

Date: 12:07:21 07/27/00

Go up one level in this thread

On July 26, 2000 at 21:36:47, leonid wrote:

>On July 26, 2000 at 20:51:07, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>On July 26, 2000 at 19:45:15, leonid wrote:
>>>On July 26, 2000 at 18:29:36, Torstein Hall wrote:
>>>>On July 26, 2000 at 18:22:47, leonid wrote:
>>>>>On July 26, 2000 at 17:26:01, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>>>>>On July 26, 2000 at 16:59:35, leonid wrote:
>>>>>>>On July 26, 2000 at 13:40:32, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>>>>>>>On July 26, 2000 at 09:18:41, leonid wrote:
>>>>>>>>>How ask Fritz execute brute force search? I have Fritz 6 but if it is possible
>>>>>>>>>for some other version (even better DOS version), please say me.
>>>>>>>>>Recently I went to see Fritz nodes per second performance. Very impressive! Only
>>>>>>>>>maybe I am missing exact numbers. NPS tend to grow when search is done by brute
>>>>>>>>>force. This is why I try to find where Fritz numbers stays in real. But Fritz,
>>>>>>>>>in dispite of its performance, is not exactly open minded piece of software.
>>>>>>>>>Even its NPS I was able to see only through my Hiarcs 7.32 program.
>>>>>>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>>My search is selective only because of null-move. I believe this is also the
>>>>>>>>case with Fritz.
>>>>>>>>With null move on, my program searches 634k NPS. (BK, short searches)
>>>>>>>On what hardware do you have 634k? I was very impressed with Fritz numbers only
>>>>>>>because they were between 220 and 320k on AMD 400Mhz. Your numbers are almost
>>>>>>>twice as fast.
>>>>>>Pentium III/800. On a K-6/400 I figure I'd get 350k NPS or so. And that's for BK
>>>>>>positions; if I did a 5 second run of WAC, I'd get 780k NPS or so.
>>>>>If I am not missing there something, your numbers are better that the Fritz
>>>>>have. If you could someday check at what speed Fritz 6 goes on your hardware and
>>>>>send me the numbers (best with some concret position), it will be very nice. Or
>>>>>just put them here. If you numbers are so good, like I see them, you should be
>>>>>really proud to say them in public.
>>>>What are you talking about? Its more to a chess program than a high NPS! Even
>>>>when doing a brute force search. Perhaps the Fritz eval is more complex etc.
>>>>etc. The proof is in the the chess game it plays, not the NPS.
>>>If you will see all the best programs you will find that biggest part of them
>>>have surprisingly close NPS, leaving aside few exceptions. When you will write
>>>your program as amateur (and ever more on C) there are very few chances that
>>>your NPS will come even close to those numbers. If your NPS is actually not only
>>>close but even better that the best monsters numbers, you have good chance to
>>>reach them all later.
>>>I was amazed by 650K on 800Mhz with a reason. Recently I found that numbers of
>>>NPS for this computers should be around 2 000 000 NPS for minimax. Only around
>>I don't know what word you mean here, but it's definitely not minimax.
>When you see all your nodes inside of ply, before finding your best value for
>>>25% of those numbers should be really reachable when all the advanced technics
>>>of search is used. It give around 400K for 800Mhz Pentium. Raaching 650K is more
>>>that simply good performance.
>>I'm not doing anything special.
>This is where my surprise lay. All the time it is possible that all my previous
>verification are wrong somewhere. This is why I ask about details that look so
>trivial. Recently I have seen in my program (something that presumably coincide
>with other programs) as 20% NPS compared with my minimax NPS. Now I speeded my
>program and those 20% reached 25%. Maybe you reached all 30% and it is from
>where your high numbers come.

I remember making some posts a few weeks ago about how there's very little
difference between minimax NPS and alpha-beta NPS. Maybe you can search the
archives for it.


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.