Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:18:52 10/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2003 at 22:00:56, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 09, 2003 at 20:28:38, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On October 07, 2003 at 20:41:45, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>Anyway, from now on it does not make any sense anymore to look at the NPS and >>>conclude anything about the amount of knowledge in the program. >> >>Has it ever? >> >>Dave > > > >No, it has never made any sense. But it has never been understood, so we will >have to repeat it forever. > > > > Christophe Some questions: 1)Do you use the same definition of np like old tiger? (do you count only legal positions?,do you count null moves?) I think that programmers who give number of nodes per second should also give exact definition of nodes(otherwise I see no reason to give that information) 2)Is the reason(or part of the reason) that you have more nps is changing your pruning algorithm to have cheap pruning after make move instead of expensive pruning before make move? In this case the nps may give misleading picture because you may be only 10% faster when your nps becomes 100% faster. Note that there are cases when comparing nps between a previous version of the program and the last version make sense because more nps means better tactical strength(for example if the programmer found a way to do the program 20% faster without changing the algorithm). 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.