Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:19:46 12/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2005 at 03:05:23, William Penn wrote: >Vas, > >Sorry, "hanging" or "hung" was a poor choice of words. (I was a little bit >despondent when I wrote that.) What that implies did not happen. The engine and >GUI were still fully functional and active. There was no problem with the >various operations. > >What I meant to say was that nothing further appeared in the analysis display >window after about 9 minutes. The engine was still active. It just wasn't >providing any more PV outputs at greater depths. Possibly it would have, if I >had let it go for a longer time, but I doubt it. > >Actually in this position, there is no doubt that the best move was already >selected after 9 minutes. The game is almost over, a quick win. In that case it >looks like Rybka simply decided there is no purpose for further analysis. So it >is not necessarily a bad behavior, it is just different compared to how other >engines behave. Naturally we would like to see the analysis and PV outputs >continue, but that's not essential if Rybka's primary objective is simply to win >the game. > >--------- > >I just ran the following long analysis in infinite mode which shows something >different. The nodes and nodes/second numbers are behaving strangely after level >20.01. It looks like the nodes counter is recycling to zero after about >500,000,000 nodes by my estimate. We used to see something similar in the older >CB engines. Easy to fix, they just had to make their counter able to count to >bigger numbers. I would guess this happened because it looks like you tripled >those output numbers for cosmetic reasons... :) > > (game#243) > >[D]5qrk/pp1r3p/n1p2p2/P1p1pNp1/4P2P/1P1PQ1P1/2P2PK1/R6R w - - > >Engine: Rybka 1.01 Preview 2 32-bit (704 MB) by Vasik Rajlich > (run 3-PV for a few minutes) >15 2:36 +1.31 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Ne6 > 36.Rxg5 fxg5 37.Rh1 Qe8 38.Qd1 b6 > 39.axb6 (16.943.250) 110 >15 3:18 +1.06 33.Ra4 g4 34.Rc4 h5 35.Rd1 Rg6 > 36.Ra1 Kg8 37.Kh2 Qe8 38.f3 gxf3 (21.431.195) 110 >15 2:59 +1.03 33.Qd2 Nc7 34.hxg5 Rxg5 35.Qc3 Nb5 > 36.Qc4 Nd4 37.Rh4 Nxf5 38.exf5 Qd6 > 39.Qe6 Qd5+ (19.457.399) 110 > (then reduce to 1 PV) >11.01 0:01 +1.32 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Ne6 > 36.Rxg5 fxg5 37.Rh1 Ng7 38.Qg4 Ne6 > 39.Rh6 Qe8 (195.954) 111 >12.01 0:02 +1.33 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Ne6 > 36.Rxg5 fxg5 37.Rh1 Ng7 38.Qg4 Ne6 > 39.Rh6 Qe8 (267.392) 110 >13.01 0:04 +1.28 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Ne6 > 36.Rxg5 fxg5 37.Rh1 Ng7 38.Qg4 Ne6 > 39.Rh6 Qe8 (513.071) 108 >14.01 0:12 +1.30 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Ne6 > 36.Rxg5 fxg5 37.Rh1 Ng7 38.Qg4 Ne6 > 39.Rh6 Qe8 (1.386.246) 110 >15.01 0:24 +1.22 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Ne6 > 36.Rxg5 fxg5 37.Rh1 Ng7 38.Qg4 Ne6 > 39.Rh6 Qe8 (2.608.983) 110 >16.01 1:29 +1.30 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Rg6 35.Rh5 Kg8 > 36.Nh4 Rgg7 37.Rh6 Nb4 38.Rxf6 Qd8 > 39.Rc1 (9.846.132) 113 >17.01 5:49 +1.23 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Rxh5 > 36.Qxh5 Ne6 37.a6 b6 38.Rh1 Qg8 > 39.Qh6 Qg5 (38.723.297) 113 >18.01 12:09 +1.18 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Qg8 > 36.Rh6 Qf8 37.Rah1 Ne6 38.Kg1 Kg8 > 39.R1h4 Qd8 (81.225.326) 114 >19.01 26:31 +1.14 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Qg8 > 36.Rh6 Qf8 37.Rah1 Ne6 38.R1h4 Kg8 > 39.Kg1 Qd8 (178.202.522) 114 >20.01 46:03 +1.26 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Qg8 > 36.Rh6 Qf8 37.Rah1 Ne6 38.R1h4 Kg8 > 39.Kg1 Qd8 (309.766.912) 114 >21.01 84:55 +1.22 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 Qg8 > 36.Rh6 Qf8 37.Rah1 Ne6 38.R1h4 b6 > 39.Qd1 b5 (35.438.207) 7 >22.01 184:10 +1.20 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Qf3 Nc7 35.Rh5 (188.955.970) 17 >23.01 554:16 +1.19 33.hxg5 Rxg5 34.Rad1 (46.840.269) 1 > >WP This is strange because 500,000,000 nodes or 600,000,000 nodes that are supposed to be searched after 554 minutes are not enough to be bigger than 2^31 so I see no logical reason for the number of nodes to do down. If the real number of nodes is higher and in printing you divide them by 4 or 8 then I can understand it but I see no reason to do it. 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.