Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 01:14:40 12/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2001 at 20:19:45, Uri Blass wrote: >>I think R. Hyatt said crafty spends 50% of the time in QS. > >I think that it includes the time that Crafty spends on evaluation function. Yes, what else? >>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. > > >It means that you probably have some bug. > >The program should run faster to the same depth when you do qsearch because of >better order of moves. I do not hash the qnodes. But the move ordering can be improved, I know. > 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! > > >There are captures that should not be analyzed because they are not good enough. >If you are a rook down and capture a pawn when alpha=0 then you can avoid making >the move because you can know that it is not good enough. > >I can guess that your problem may be that you make these captures only to >evaluate them later and discover that they are bad. > >Maybe my guess is wrong and your problem is different. I'm not sure, I'm doing exactly what Bruce has explained here: http://www.seanet.com/~brucemo/topics/quiescent.htm it is simple, and apparently slow. >>BTW Christophe, are you not doing SEE at all? > >I think that Tom already explained in his reply to christophe that Christophe >does DEE and not SEE. > >Uri Right, it was some recursive evaluator. Interesting though, that the strongest program around is not using SEE ;) -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.