Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 21:57:00 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 Just a thought, I wonder if what it is done in quiescence would have and interaction with nullmove. For instance, if checks are not detected in quiescence null move will make the program blind for some tactics. R=2 or R=3 might have different effects. My program is too simple and I started with R=3. Doing some experiments I found that R=2 will do better when I changed how I did things in quiescence. To be honest, I was not very methodic on this and I am still experimenting, but I thing that there could be an interaction. I don't think I am in the position to give advice, but this experience might induce you to come up with an idea. Regards, Miguel
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.