Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 16:50:13 12/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2001 at 19:13:33, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 29, 2001 at 18:48:32, Severi Salminen wrote: > >>>>>If your full QS eats 80% of the time I would say that limiting QS is indeed a >>>>>must. However my QS (full) takes about 10-15% (25-30% with checks) and so the >>>>>picture is quite different then. >>>> >>>>Ok, but what about nodes? Does your qsearch take only 10-15% of all the nodes? >>>>That's quite low... >>>> >>>>Severi >>> >>>Yes that is very impressive, I must have lots of room for improvement ;) >> >>Yeah, but no way it can be 10% of all the nodes: that is just too low. Or then >>it prunes like hell... >> >>Severi > > > >Believe it or not, above 30% you have a big problem somewhere. I think R. Hyatt said crafty spends 50% of the time in QS. >That's the reason why using a SEE instead of the QSearch is not an improvement. > >Remember: we do not count the horizon nodes as being in the QSearch, because >with or without QSearch you have to visit them anyway. > > Christophe I'm not counting nodes just the time, the program just runs 3-5 times slower to the same depth (for the base tree) when it does a full QS. I don't understand why this is so unexpected, say there are two possible captures at every leaf node on average after I stop my QS at depth 3. Then that alone is 3 times as large a tree, and there could be more captures after that! In the midgame I think it is quite normal for the QS to do 5-6 plies. BTW Christophe, are you not doing SEE at all? -S.
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.