Author: Slater Wold
Date: 04:55:05 08/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2002 at 07:00:40, Chuck wrote: >I can no longer find the exact text, but as I recall the author of Hiarcs 8 >claimed the search algorithm was greatly improved to avoid the "explosion" of >the search tree at great depths. This appears to me to be a false claim. > >I run alot of deep analysis with Junior 7, Fritz 7, Chess Tiger 14, Gambit Tiger >2, Shredder 6, Rebel Century 4, Gandalf 5 and Hiarcs 8. Often I let a program >analyze a single position for 2-4 days. All seem to handle this well except >Hiarcs, which is completely incapable. It seems there is a certain point where >the nps dramatically drops on Hiarcs. All the computers I use are 1.2 - 1.5 GHz >with 256-512 MB RAM, and Hiarcs will usually report 150-200 kn/s, but after a >day or more this figure will drop dramatically. Right now I'm looking at another >computer where it has been analyzing a position for 45:19:56 and it is reporting >23 kn/s! I've seen it drop further, to 10-15 kn/s where I kill it. This may >always happen (haven't really tracked it, normally I just give up on Hiarcs >after it wastes so much of my time). I used to and would like to still be a >Hiarcs fan, but this is a significant problem IMO. > >It seems to me the tree "explosion" is still a big, big problem and the author's >claim was false. My evidence suggests Hiarcs is crippled at deep analysis. That's not what's happening......... What is happening, is that the node counter has to restart. So when it calculates nps, it is way off. All engines have to restart their node count after X amount of searching (depending if they are 32 or 64 bit).
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.