Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:51:46 09/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2001 at 16:31:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 26, 2001 at 13:02:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 26, 2001 at 11:41:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On September 26, 2001 at 11:39:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>please also print for each depth the number of nodes you need! >>> >>>depths 12/13 with R=2 or R=3 you get within a few seconds or so.\ >> >>I don't get depth 12/13 in a few seconds. It is more like a few minutes. >>What use is the node count? In chess you don't get to search until you >>have searched X nodes. You get to search until you have used Y seconds... >> >> >> >>> >>>All the 2.0 speedups i get here i never get within a few seconds. >>>it's always levels which i can't realize in tournaments. >> >>I don't have that problem. I can get 1.9 in a few seconds or a few minutes >>or a few hours. > > >I assume this topic is "closed"? No more comments since I posted some real >data to show that null-move has nothing to do with parallel search efficiency... No more comments does not mean that there is an agreement. I do not have an opinion about the speed improvement but I think that the right test is not to search to a fixed depth but to search until you find a move that you need to find. If the question is about long time control then you should use positions from games when Crafty changes it's mind after a long time when you can compare the time that it need to change it's mind with one processor and the time that it needs to change it's mind with 2 processors. The positions do not need to be taken from a tactical test but from games when Crafty changes it's mind after enough time always to the same move for positional or tactical reasons. Uri
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.