Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 07:02:57 03/25/04
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. > >Uri I have to agree with Uri here. If your program plays weaker with null move after 10 games, you screwed something up. Null move is simply _that big_. Getting 2 extra plys should show up long before 100 games . . . anthony
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.