Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 23:07:17 07/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
I still do not understand which positions you talk about which R=2 is finding and R=3 isn't. What the hell do you do in qsearch, no checks or so? On July 11, 2002 at 17:40:07, Omid David wrote: >On July 11, 2002 at 17:37:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 11, 2002 at 17:27:50, Omid David wrote: >> >>>On July 11, 2002 at 17:20:36, Andrew Dados wrote: >>> >>>>On July 11, 2002 at 16:38:50, Omid David wrote: >>>> >>>>>As part of an extensive research (will be published soon), we tested null-move >>>>>pruning with fixed depth reductions of R=2 and R=3 on about 800 positions of >>>>>"mate in 4" (searched to depth of 8 plies) and "mate in 5" (searched to depth of >>>>>10 plies). The results naturally show that R=2 has greater tactical performance >>>>>(greater number of checkmate detection). However, we also conducted about >>>>>hundred self-play matches under 60min/game time control between R=2 and R=3. The >>>>>outcome is a rather balanced result (R=2 only a little better). Considering that >>>>>the tests where conducted on a rather slow engine (100k nps), on faster engines >>>>>R=3 is expected to perform better. >>>>> >>>>>So, apparently R=2 is not _by_far_ better than R=3 as some assume. I believe >>>>>Bruce Moreland had also some good results with R=3 that show it's not too >>>>>inferior to R=2. Has anyone conducted similar experiments? >>>> >>>>Since you didn't specify what engine you have used I assume from your experiment >>>>it was something which didn't do checks in qsearch. >>>> >>>>I think your experiment is of little meaning. >>>> >>>>What data would be interesting here is tree size reduction at different depths >>>>in 'normal' positions; then match result with average depth of 11-14 (this is >>>>low end of what most engines reach at current hw with tournament tc). >>>> >>>>For my engine which does most checks in qsearch R=3 compared to R=2 reduces tree >>>>size by 15-40% at depth=11. It misses some deep, quiet threats comparing to R=2 >>>>(forks, some passed pawn combi, etc), but its WAC result at 5s/position (amd 450 >>>>then) was almost the same (worse by 2 positions if my memory serves). >>>> >>>>In very limited nunn-style matches of 32 games g/15 R=3 was never worse then R=2 >>>>for my engine. >>>> >>>>When engine has stripped down qsearch ala Crafty it will need more depth to >>>>offset additional null reduction. >>>> >>>>Please redo your experiment with fritz which does do checks in qsearch. >>>> >>>>-Andrew- >>> >>>The tree size, etc have been calculated. But that's even not the point. The >>>point is that in practice by changing the R from 2 to 3, the engine won't lose >>>too much strength since on many occasions the faster search by R=3 will find the >>>correct move one ply later but won't waste for that too much. (Although the >>>research wasn't about this point at all, I just found this point interesting). >>> >>>>For my engine which does most checks in qsearch R=3 compared to R=2 reduces >>>>tree size by 15-40% at depth=11. It misses some deep, quiet threats comparing >>>>to R=2 >>> >>>The fixed depth search on test suites shows that R=2 is clearly far stronger >>>than R=3, no surprises there. Of course R=3 misses many tactical threats as you >>>mentioned in fixed depth comparison to R=2. >> >> >>I think this last should be expected. But the point should be that R=3 should >>actually go deeper, maybe a ply. Which _might_ gain back the tactical losses >>found at equal depths. > >Yes, this is the only explanation why while R=2 is far stronger than R=3 in >fixed depth, in practical matches R=2 doesn't have such a great dominance over >R=3.
This page took 0.04 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.