Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 11:03:50 08/08/01
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 What makes R=1 better than R=0. What makes R=2 better than R=1. What makes R=n+1 better than R=n. I got no particular benefit I can identify from Heinz's adaptive null move (R=2/3). But then again I have no reliable test methodology - other than the size of the tree, which is a bit smaller, but whether this is the correct metric I do not know, since not searching at all makes the tree smallest. Frank
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.