Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:30:32 03/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 2004 at 14:32:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 24, 2004 at 02:11:34, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 23, 2004 at 21:28:14, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> >>It means that it is not implemented correctly. >>In the relevant case I understood that R=2 was used. >> >>>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. >> >>I do not suggest to trust result of 10 games to decide if there is an >>improvement. >> >>I only say that there is a good reason to believe that there is a problem in the >>implementation after seeing bad result in 10 games. >> >>I do not claim that you can be sure about it but the question is what to do >>next(play more games or look at the code to see if there is some problem in the >>code). > >The point I was making is that it might look better, even though it is really >much worse. Especially with a thing like null move, some positions would >benefit greatly from massive pruning, but others would miss very important >variations. > >So if after ten games you see 10-0, you might decide it is a great improvement >and even tweak something else. That would be a mistake. I think that 10-0 is a very significant result. 6-4 or even 7-3 may be misleading but not 10-0. Uri
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.