Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:11:12 12/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2001 at 12:55:07, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 > > >Rebel: Total nodes: 4.580.488 > QS nodes : 747.568 > >I don't know about SEE, when Rebel evaluates a position I get back the 3 highest >hanging pieces (possible losses) and the 2 highest attacked pieces (threats), so >I don't need SEE, it is build-in the evaluation so to say. Update: Total nodes: 4.580.488 QS nodes : 747.568 When I remove checking moves from QS, so a pure QS, I get: Total nodes: 3.346.349 QS nodes : 343.423 Just under 10% :) Ed
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.