Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 12:58:35 10/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 1999 at 13:34:59, Steve Maughan wrote: >Bas > >> >>First: are you sure you don't doublecount nodes? > >I'm not double counting. > >>If you put Nodes++ on top of ab and Qnodes++ on top of qsearch, then you >>doublecount the depth = 0 nodes. Because you count em in the normal search *and* >>the qsearch. Therefore, before you go into the qsearch do a qnodes--. >> >>Counted that way qnodes should be a smal fraction of total nodes. It depends >>also on the position. And according to my experience the use of nullmove worsens >>that rate, because normal nodes get pruned at the cost of extra qsearches. >>Without null I see qrates of 10-20% and *with* nullmove it is more like 50%. > >I can't see how the ratio of QNodes:NormalNodes can go below 1:1 (eg 10-20%) as >each NormalNode must give rise to at least one QNode. Where am I going wrong? > >>In any case 5:1 is certainly not what it should be, at least not if you do a >>simple qsearch without checks etc. A way to improve that rate is skipping losing >>captures. Also if there are serious errors in movesorting the qrate can go way >>up. > >I'm only doing good captures in the QSearch - hmmm, I'll have another play >around No, this must immediately be fixed :) And it can't be too hard to do so. Do you have a simple straightforward qseach like in Crafty? I would check your qsearch carefully. There is something wrong, I think, and my bet is it's the qsearch. Do you have the same rate with nullmove and all tricks off? With just the most basic scheme? Shouldn't be so. If it's hard get the cause I usually print a small part of the tree to see what's going on. Does it play first what you expect, etc. > >Thanks anyway!! > > >> >>Regards, >>Bas Hamstra.
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.