Author: Ryan B.
Date: 19:25:35 02/06/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2006 at 21:58:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 06, 2006 at 21:47:09, Ryan B. wrote: > >>On February 06, 2006 at 17:20:00, Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso wrote: >> >>>Some time ago I saw someone reporting (don't remember if it was here) Rybka >>>doing 30Knps, while crafy 19.x doing 800Knps and Fritz8 doing over a million nps >>>on his pc while beating both crafty and fritz. >>> >>>Over the years computer programmers said that nps was an importante factor in an >>>engine performance, (and I agree, look at Deep Blue and Hydra). >>>In face of Rybka nps, my question is: >>>What the hell is going on? >>>In this department Rybka seams to prove that nps isn't a factor for performance >>>at all. >>> >>>Please state you opinion on this. >>> >>>best regards, >>>Alvaro Cardoso >> >>Rather it is to hide extra hidden search or for marketing propaganda I do not >>know but I do know Rybka manipulates its node count. > >By what means do you know this? > >>What is really important >>is the tactical strength of Rybka not the NPS. It will be interesting to see >>what other engines have similar success after going back to try “old” ideas. >>Also not that Rybka is bad in endgames, I think it is rather good, but it will >>be interesting to see how Vas handles the endgame issues in Rybka. It does not >>seem that it will be as simple as just adding endgame knowledge. >> >> >>Ryan At low depths the node count can go down from one depth to the next. That should be proof enough as node count should never go down. I am sure I could find the algorithm used to manipulate the node count in the REC output but I am not so interested in that area. Possibly if I have some time to burn I will look for it later. Ryan
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.