Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Ernst A. Heinz

Date: 18:11:25 01/26/00

Go up one level in this thread

On January 26, 2000 at 20:03:56, Peter W. Gillgasch wrote:
>On January 26, 2000 at 16:26:08, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>This would change if some of this stuff backs up into the software part of
>>the search, of course...  But we seem to be talking only about the q-search
>>as implemented in hardware, and every node saved is N nanoseconds saved,
>Bob I really hate it when we share the same opinion 8^)

No, we are not only talking about the quiescence search. We are talking
about the last full-width plies (without hash tables!) plus the quiescence
search. I do not really know how good the move ordering can be in this

In his IEEE Micro article Hsu mentions an average cycle count of 10 per
node. He times the "slow" part of the evaluation at an additional 11 cycles
overall with a 3-cycle latency per column. It does not look like the "slow"
part of the evaluation is further overlapped with other stuff. So it
definitely hurts the NPS rate.


This page took 0.01 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.