Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Ed Schröder

Date: 09:58:07 01/26/00

Go up one level in this thread

On January 26, 2000 at 10:03:47, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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.

So there is no free 4 ply evaluation at all. Makes sense. Must have
misunderstood in the past.


This page took 0.11 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.