Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:30:40 03/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 10, 2003 at 08:07:35, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >... >>>> >>>>Comet is not one of the fast searchers so I thought that for you it should be >>>>not expensive. >>> >>>I don't see your point. Why should a certain percentage of extra-nodes be >>>"cheaper" for a slower searcher than for a faster searcher ? >> >>The reason is simple. >> >>I assume that fast searcher may get significantly less nodes per seconds when it >>does checks in the qsearch when it is not the case for slow searcher. > > >I am not sure; perhaps the opposite is true: particularly, an engine with fast >move generation will not pay too much for generating some extra nodes. > >Uli > >... I think that I understand your point There are 2 problems with adding checks in the qsearch: 1)If your function to find checks is slow then you get less nodes per second because of calculating checks in the qsearch 2)If your evaluation is slow you get less nodes because of evaluating more positions I guess that you say that for you 2 is the main problem. It is not the case for me and I think that 1 is the main reason that I get less nodes per second. Uri
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.