lies and statistics

[flok]

Hi,

Do you guys also count the visited quiesence nodes when calculating the number of nodes visited per second?
Same question for depth reached.

[bob]

Hi,

Do you guys also count the visited quiesence nodes when calculating the number of nodes visited per second?
Same question for depth reached.

I count every node visited. This includes normal search, quiescence search.

The depth I report is the nominal depth carried to full-width. q-search depth does not get included. Some display two depths like this "xx/yy" where xx is the nominal full-width depth and yy is the max depth the q-search reached.

[Daniel Shawul]

I fail to see the connection between the title of your post and the content. You say that phrase when you see people trying to cover up for weak arguments with statistical jargon. Some engines count nodes 'differently', not counting pruned nodes, qnodes etc. However iterative depth probably doesn't leave much room for misinterpretation, thus counting depth differently is probably a deliberate action that CIA should take a look at

[flok]

I fail to see the connection between the title of your post and the content. You say that phrase when you see people trying to cover up for weak arguments with statistical jargon. Some engines count nodes 'differently', not counting pruned nodes, qnodes etc. However iterative depth probably doesn't leave much room for misinterpretation, thus counting depth differently is probably a deliberate action that CIA should take a look at

Daniel, I tried to be funny.
The question at itself was serious though.

[elpapa]

Hi,

Do you guys also count the visited quiesence nodes when calculating the number of nodes visited per second?
Same question for depth reached.

I think you should, because every time you make a move you reach a new position. It doesn't matter if it's made in the normal search or the quiescence search.

However, if you increase the node counter at the top of the search functions you will count the horizon nodes twice, since you never make any move in search() before the call to qsearch(), so it's still the same position. This could possibly affect your root move ordering if you sort the moves by node count. I think the best way to go is to put your ++nodes inside the move loop or in make_move().

[bob]

Hi,

Do you guys also count the visited quiesence nodes when calculating the number of nodes visited per second?
Same question for depth reached.

I think you should, because every time you make a move you reach a new position. It doesn't matter if it's made in the normal search or the quiescence search.

However, if you increase the node counter at the top of the search functions you will count the horizon nodes twice, since you never make any move in search() before the call to qsearch(), so it's still the same position. This could possibly affect your root move ordering if you sort the moves by node count. I think the best way to go is to put your ++nodes inside the move loop or in make_move().

How would you count 'em twice? If you count at the top of search, you certainly don't call search twice in a row without making a move do you??? I don't.

[Steve Maughan]

In Maverick I count every call to AlphaBeta and QSearch.

Steve

[Robert Pope]

Hi,

Do you guys also count the visited quiesence nodes when calculating the number of nodes visited per second?
Same question for depth reached.

I think you should, because every time you make a move you reach a new position. It doesn't matter if it's made in the normal search or the quiescence search.

However, if you increase the node counter at the top of the search functions you will count the horizon nodes twice, since you never make any move in search() before the call to qsearch(), so it's still the same position. This could possibly affect your root move ordering if you sort the moves by node count. I think the best way to go is to put your ++nodes inside the move loop or in make_move().

How would you count 'em twice? If you count at the top of search, you certainly don't call search twice in a row without making a move do you??? I don't.

if(depth<0) Quiesce();
at the beginning of alphabeta will cause more calls to alphabeta than if you have

if(depth==0) val=Quiesce();
else val=-alphabeta(depth-1,-beta,-alpha);

in the middle of alphabeta.

I increment nodes at each makemove, which works the same with either type of code.

[elpapa]

How would you count 'em twice? If you count at the top of search, you certainly don't call search twice in a row without making a move do you??? I don't.

It depends on where you check for depth==0 and make the call to qsearch of course. I make it at the top of the normal search and that's where it can go wrong, like this:

Code: Select all

search()
{
   ++nodes;
   if&#40;depth <= 0&#41;
       return qsearch&#40;);
   ...
&#125;

qsearch&#40;)
&#123;
   ++nodes;
   ...
&#125;

[Steve Maughan]

Then just increment the nodes after the zero depth test:

Code: Select all

search()
{

   if&#40;depth <= 0&#41;
       return qsearch&#40;);
   ++nodes;
   ...
&#125;

qsearch&#40;)
&#123;
   ++qnodes;
   ...
&#125;