Below are the node counts from running WAC and BT2630 to a fixed depth of 10 (well, 10 iterations). As you can see, there was a *significant* increase in the number of nodes processed when deferring bad captures. (The node counts below are divided by 1000 BTW.)

WAC:

Code: Select all

```
[email protected] ~/haskell $ runhugs nodecounts.hs < capsfirst-wac.out
300 lines processed.
total interior nodes: 48188
total quiesence nodes: 173934
total nodes: 222122
done!
[email protected] ~/haskell $ runhugs nodecounts.hs < badcapslast-wac.out
300 lines processed.
total interior nodes: 64056
total quiesence nodes: 303719
total nodes: 367775
done!
```

Code: Select all

```
[email protected] ~/haskell $ runhugs nodecounts.hs < capsfirst-bt2630.out
30 lines processed.
total interior nodes: 10025
total quiesence nodes: 38898
total nodes: 48923
done!
[email protected] ~/haskell $ runhugs nodecounts.hs < badcapslast-bt2630.out
30 lines processed.
total interior nodes: 15111
total quiesence nodes: 77186
total nodes: 92297
done!
```

pv move

hash move 1 (from depth preferred table)

hash move 2 (from always replace table)

captures, in order of MVV/LVA

killer 1

killer 2

noncaptures, in order of history score

I'm curious how many of you defer losing captures, and how many do not, and if anybody has had similar results to what I've come up with.

--

James