Author: William Bryant
Date: 15:15:37 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2001 at 16:03:34, Bruce Moreland wrote: >I've often heard people state that null move with R=3 is better than with R=2, >but I have never ever ever gotten a test result that indicates this. > >I've tried everything. I've tried it throughout the tree, I've tried it near >the root, and I've tried it near the tips. > >My measurement standard is ECM positions solved, which *always* goes down. > >What are other people doing that I'm not doing, or are people testing in some >other way, if so is their way better or worse? > >I would test Crafty both ways (it's currently doing R=3 some places), but my >machines will be busy until after the WMCCC. > >bruce Bruce, As a complete amature, I can't get any positive benifits with R=3 either. I have always assumed that it was my limited evaluation code. Not enough information to keep R=3 from missing good/bad positions until much deeper. Let me know if you find an answers William
This page took 0 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.