Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:13:05 12/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2001 at 10:57:30, Severi Salminen wrote:
>I just would like to see how other engines do in similar position. So, feed the
>position (1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5) to your engine, perform a 10 ply search and report
>the number of nodes and qnodes. To make sure we count nodes identically, this is
>what I do: I increase nodes if I don't call qsearch() from search() and I
>increase qnodes in the beginning of qsearch(). Like this:
>
>search()
>{
> if(depth<=0)
> qsearch()
> nodes++;
>.
>.
>}
>
>qsearch()
>{
> qnodes++;
>.
>.
>}
>
>Try to get similar counting scheme so figures are comparable. Here is the
>position:
>[d] rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3pp3/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
>
>And please tell if you use SEE or not. I'll post my results soon also.
>
>Severi
It would be much better to count QSearch nodes as node generated BY QSearch.
That means that the roots of the QSearches should not be counted.
You want to evaluate the efficiency of your QSearch, so you need to count the
nodes GENERATED BY IT.
The root of any QSearch has not been generated by QSearch, and so should not
been counted in your measurement of QSearch efficiency.
Christophe
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.