Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 15:54:30 11/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 18:50:46, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On November 20, 2002 at 18:46:19, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On November 20, 2002 at 18:43:15, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On November 20, 2002 at 18:36:13, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>I think the following data speaks for itself. Old is Heinz+big quiescent, >>>>New is Omid+small quiescent. >>>> >>>>Warning: node count is different! >>>> >>>>Node count is for same depth only. >>>> >>>> Old New Ratio >>>>----------------------------------------------------- >>>>Nodes: 329973801 399142126 120.96% >>>>Time: 49737 65105 130.90% >>>>Depth: 9.73 9.91 0.19 >>>>Solved: 126 115 >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>>What does the small quiescence consist of? >> >>Just captures, ordered by SEE, tossing out obviously losing ones. >> > >Could you please compare (Adptv + small quiesc) vs (Vrfd +small quiesc) ? > > BTW, please allocate more time for each position. The deeper you go, the greater will be the advantage of verified null-move (see Figure 4 of my article). Or you might want to conduct a test to a fixed depth of 10 plies, and then compare the total node count and number of solved positions. >>-- >>GCP
This page took 0.03 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.