Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Doesn't appear to work for me (full data)

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 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.