Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 16:00:26 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 On a slightly different topic, has anybody tried fractional ply reductions, whether using classic nullmove or adaptive nullmove (2/3 a la Heinz, well actually classic nullmove is just a special case of adaptive nullmove where the two different reductions are the same)? I mean if for Crafty for instance, it was found that an adaptive scheme with 2/3 was best (as others have verified for their programs), why not try values in between 2 and 3? Of course, if one hasn't got any fractional extensions in the mix also, this will not do anything, but for programs that do have fractional extentions, maybe this can be used to make nullmove work better with the extensions. Who knows. I haven't had the time to develop _anything_ on Chezzz since CCT3, and I haven't got time to test this right away. Damn, why can't I just get payed for developing a chess engine, and do that all day? :) Probably because I'm not good enough...
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.