Author: Mathieu Pagé
Date: 06:12:39 03/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2004 at 15:25:53, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 04, 2004 at 15:16:43, Mathieu Pagé wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>I've just change my minimax algorithm for an AB one. (Yes I know i should have >>done this long long time ago, but i did want to keep it simple until it could >>play a complete game and understand _all_ the chess rules). >> >>As expected my engines can search deeper (3-4 more plys) than the old version in >>the same time, but the NPS drop dramatically, going from 3.6M nodes/s to a >>little bit over 2M nodes/s. It's about 44 % decrease. >> >>I think it is normal that the nps of Minimax was greater then AB's one because >>in AB lot of move are generated, but not searched (so they are not add to the >>number of nodes) >> >>but i think that going from 3.6M to 2M is a big difference. >> >>Is this behavior normal or did I put an unusual overhead in my algorithm (For >>now, i have carefully revised my code and can not see what it is) ? >> >>TIA :) >> >>Mathieu Pagé > >How do you count nodes? Each call to AB, I count it as a node. (I have no quiescence or other fancy things) >Does your perft calculation give a different rate now? No, my perft is as fast as it was (over 4 millions nodes per seconds) >I suspect the difference is that you spend more time in the search and less time >in the move generator. But that is only a guess. I guess you mean more time in the move generation less in the search. did you ? Note that i still have no ordering except a primitive LVA (without MVV ??) move ordering is the next step on my TODO Mathieu P.
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.