Author: Dan Homan
Date: 05:41:46 09/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 1999 at 06:40:39, Andrew Williams wrote: >On September 07, 1999 at 19:10:37, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>On September 07, 1999 at 13:54:40, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On September 07, 1999 at 10:27:06, James Robertson wrote: >>> >>>>On September 07, 1999 at 09:01:34, Andrew Williams wrote: >>> >>>>>Using this scheme, what would you count if you enter a search node, check for >>>>>extensions, find there are none and decide to go into the qsearch? One node >>>>>or two? >>>>> >>>>>Andrew >>>> >>>>Er.... I think that case is impossible in my program. :) >>> >>>This kind of stuff is not impossible using the generic Thompson search/qsearch >>>model. You can get a case where you call qsearch, notice that you are in check, >>>and do "return search(...)", which would count a node for "qsearch", and another >>>node for the recursive call into "search", even though only one node was really >>>dealt with. This of course depends upon where you put the nodes++, which isn't >>>present in the Thompson pseudo-code. >> >>Seems to me the simplest place to put nodes++ is in the MakeMove function. > >I can't really do that as I use my hash table for generating my PV and need >to use make_move to walk up and down the PV at the end of iterations. I guess >I could write a stripped down make_move, but I haven't really looked at that >yet. > >Cheers > >Andrew So put the nodes++ just after or before your makemove function in the search/qsearch. - Dan > >> >>> >>>I think that one node should be counted in cases like these. If you end up >>>counting a lot of nodes twice, you can be comparing with someone else who has >>>written essentially the same program, and it looks like you are going faster. >>> >>>bruce
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.