Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 07:51:55 09/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 1999 at 10:09:57, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On September 06, 1999 at 07:41:01, blass uri wrote: > >>On September 06, 1999 at 07:05:03, blass uri wrote: >> >>>I know that nodes in some programs(like Junior) include illegal moves and my >>>question is if the same illegal moves are defined as nodes by all the programs. >> >>I am not sure about the definition of nodes about Junior but I am sure that >>Junior generate illegal moves and it discovers that they are illegal only by >>search so I guess that it does not count only legal moves as nodes. >> > >Another thing is: the natural way to count nodes is to put a nodes++ in the >search and in the qsearh. But then you double count the leafs of the normal >search (same node, same depth in search and qsearch). Is this the norm for programs? What PostModernist does is to increment abNodes, then check if there are any extensions. If (after taking into account any extensions) we're out of depth, I *decrement* abNodes and call quiesce(..), which increments qNodes as its first step. Total nodes is then abNodes+qNodes, and nodes are not counted twice in this scheme. > >But: does it make sense to compare NPS between programs? Suppose one program >uses SEE pruning and the other program not. Now the program without SEE will >have a higher NPS. But does this comparison make any sense? > As you say, it's often comparing apples and oranges. But if we all counted nodes in exactly the same way, we'd have taken one variable out of the equation when comparing programs. Andrew Williams > > >Regards, >Bas Hamstra. > > > > > > > >>Uri >> >>> >>>If the answer is negative then we cannot say that one program is a faster >>>searcher only because it searches more nodes per second. >>> >>>We need a clear definition of nodes to compare. >>> >>>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.