Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:28:14 03/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2004 at 18:18:51, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 23, 2004 at 17:28:17, martin fierz wrote: > >>On March 23, 2004 at 17:13:46, Aivaras Juzvikas wrote: >> >>>On March 23, 2004 at 16:40:46, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >>> >>>>On March 23, 2004 at 16:38:28, Aivaras Juzvikas wrote: >>>> >>>>>forgot to mention, i dont try null move on 0 ply >>>> >>>>Than what's your test set? >>> >>>test set?i just let two versions of my engine play each other a couple of 15 0 >>>games, the result is either a draw or a win for the one w/o null move, even tho >>>it searches deeper as i already mentioned >> >>"a couple" meaning...? >> >>if it's two games, forget it. if it's 10 games, forget it too. start believing >>it when it's 100 games... > >I think that if you do not get improvement with null move based on 10 games then >there is good chance that you have a bug in the implementation. Null move, implemented incorrectly, can make the program play much weaker most of the time but even much better some of the time. Suppose (for instance) that R=4/6 is selected instead of 2/3 by some accident. After ten games, it might look very good because of random chance. But 100 games would show that it was bad. I would never believe any result of less than 30 games can be trusted.
This page took 0.01 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.