Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: DB NPS (anyone know the position used)?

Author: Peter W. Gillgasch

Date: 21:31:06 01/25/00

Go up one level in this thread

On January 25, 2000 at 23:57:33, Ernst A. Heinz wrote:

>> In a one by one setting it does not matter at all.
>Still not convinced: a quiescence node that produces a direct
>"stand pat" cutoff obviously generates less work than one
>which fails to do so -- even in hardware!  *** QED ***

Which is the same as saying that EVAL is faster than EVAL plus
some other work.

>Or am I missing something?

Yes. A "stand pat" cutoff does not interact with the behaviour
of the parent with regard to spinning off siblings since it is
from the view of the parent just a fail low, which is the reason
why you can safely prune away that move. Maybe you should read
a book about futility pruning 8^)

If you do not analyze the timing behaviour of both the parent and the
child you do not analyze the timing behaviour of moves and
hence you do not even analyze nodes. Your view reduced the
object of your analysis (a tree) to one node.  From a node no tree
can be constructed hence nothing can be concluded about a tree search
or their nodal rate...

-- Peter

This page took 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.