Author: Eelco de Groot
Date: 05:19:38 11/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 1999 at 12:05:10, Ed Schröder wrote: >On November 08, 1999 at 09:47:46, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On November 08, 1999 at 04:57:37, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>On November 08, 1999 at 04:33:54, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>. >>>. >>>. >>>> >>>>NPS is just some number that is easy to collect. It is not an indicator of >>>>tactical speed, much less chess strength. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>>But I think normally it's quite good indicator for tactical speed. E.g. Fritz >>>and Goliath are tactically two best engines by far... >>> >>>Jouni >> >>Hello Jouni, >>I think you will find that Hiarcs is also tactically very good and it's NPS is >>about 10% of Fritz. I am also curious as to which programs solved the most >>problems and which one did it in the fastest time. To me, that is more >>important than any NPS measurement. Especially since programmers can't even >>agree on how to count NPS in their programs. >>Jim Walker > >More about NPS... Rebel has a slow and fast evaluation function. When I >tune to do more fast evaluations (in stead off slow evaluations) Rebel's >NPS may go with a factor of 2/3/4. Meaning to say NPS doesn't mean much. > >Ed Do you have just two sizes for the evaluation function, Ed? I mean if you take a higher number for Chess Knowledge, does that simply mean you lower the threshold for when Rebel switches from fast evaluation to slow evaluation, based on data from fast evaluation (I would guess)? Or is your implementation of lazy eval more complex than that? Thanks for any answer, Eelco
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.