Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:03:47 01/26/00

Go up one level in this thread

On January 26, 2000 at 03:07:42, Ed Schröder wrote:

>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 ***
>>Or am I missing something?
>Something else... I always wondered about this free 4-ply evaluation. I
>can understand that evaluation for the current position done in hardware
>is possible in a few cycles. I can't understand this also to be true for
>4 plies as it should involve: search, hash table, q-search etc. In other
>words a complete chess program.

They didn't do this as you describe.  The chess processor did a traditional
alpha/beta search to a depth of 4 (this was user-settable, but going deeper
in the hardware meant going shallower in software) followed by a traditional
quiescence search and _then_ the hardware evaluation.

This means that the 4 ply search is _not_ done in 10 clocks... only the
evaluation.  The 4 ply search takes a variable amount of time depending on
the position.

This page took 0.02 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.