Author: Mathieu Pagé
Date: 06:15:59 03/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 2004 at 00:56:20, Tony Werten 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. > >Not really. You spend more time in ordering the moves now. Not only the ordering >itself, but also a lot more memory references. ie probing the hashtable, probing >killertables, maybe history table. And of coarse, you have to remove those moves >from the movelist. Did you already split your move generation in captures and >non-captures ? at a first sight your answer seem to confirm what I was expecting, but is your answer the same if I tell you that I have (still) no ordering, no hashtable, no killertable, no history ... What I have is a plain AlphaBeta with iterative deepening. Mahtieu 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.