Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:41:14 10/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 1999 at 13:50:48, Scott Gasch wrote:
>On October 06, 1999 at 09:41:00, Steve Maughan wrote:
>
>>What is the 'best' or lowest ratio of quiescent nodes to normal nodes. I am
>>currently analysing about 5:1 ie the vast majority of my time is being spent in
>>QSearch and I was wondering what is 'normal'.
>>
>>For the aviodance of doubt, I have two search procedures AlphaBeta and QSearch.
>>The ratio that I'm interested in is the ratio of nodes processed by QSearch
>>against those processed by AlphaBeta.
>
>
>Hi Steve,
>
>I too have this problem -- I see about 4x more qnodes than tree nodes. I am
>doing winning captures only (with a SEE) and a futility check (delta pruning ala
>crafty) in the qeval routine. I am not sure what I could be doing wrong unless
>my move ordering is messed up somehow. My move generator returns:
>
>1) PV nodes
>2) winning captures
>3) losing captures
>4) killers
>5) the rest ordered based on history table
>
step 3 is wrong. after winning captures, then even exchanges, try killers,
then the rest of the moves (in history order for the first few only) which
will include the losing captures...
>I appreciate any advice... here are some sample search stats after 1. a2a3
>searching to 6 ply:
>
>Thinking.
>1 39 0 55 g8f6
>2 4 0 752 g7g6 g1f3 g8f6
>3 29 0 976 g8f6 g1f3 b8c6
>4 18 0 3905 d7d5 b1c3 d5d4 c3e4 c8f5
>5 4 100 22049 g8f6 g1f3 b8a6
>6 21 500 111840 g8f6 g1f3 b7b6 g2g3 c8b7 f1g2 b7f3
>
>move g8f6
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>search stats:
>
> 111842 search nodes (111840 internal, 2 leaf) and 453383 qeval nodes.
> 1221 qeval futility cuts, 1263 search futility cuts, and 220881 lazy evals.
> processed 82076 line extensions.
> 79357 null move successes, 29216 failures, 73.09% null move efficiency.
> searched for 5.24 sec at a rate of 107951 nodes/sec.
>
>hash stats:
>
> main hash: 24217 adds, 1637 (14) hits, 110203 misses, 1.46% efficiency.
> pawn hash: 153812 hits, 78691 misses, 66.15% efficiency.
>
>misc. stats:
>
> aspiration: 6 successes, 0 failures, 100.00% efficiency.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
here is mine... starting position and playing 1. a3:
nss depth time score variation (1)
1 0.00 0.10 1. ... Nc6
1-> 0.00 0.10 1. ... Nc6
2 0.00 -0.14 1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3
2-> 0.00 -0.14 1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3
3 0.01 0.10 1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6
3-> 0.01 0.10 1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6
4 0.01 -0.14 1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3
4-> 0.02 -0.14 1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3
5 0.03 0.08 1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5
5-> 0.04 0.08 1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5
6 0.07 -0.14 1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4.
d4
6-> 0.15 -0.14 1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4.
d4
time=0.16 cpu=93% mat=0 n=9416 fh=94% nps=58850
ext-> checks=23 recaps=3 pawns=0 1rep=4 thrt:0
predicted=0 nodes=9416 evals=4197
endgame tablebase-> probes done=0 successful=0
that on a PII/300 notebook. our nodes are _far_ different as you can see. I
did 9416 total, practically no extensions of any kind, and only about 4/5ths
of the evals were 'full evals'...
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.