Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 11:49:12 08/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
I solve about the same no WAC positions with R=2 and R=3. In games I notice that with R=3 it sometimes overlooks tactics (most noticable at blitz). It also seems to play more passively/defensive. This is because I tune for aggressive play and R=3 misses offensive tactics. At first sight R=3 near the root does not seem to do much good. But at some point I let the R=2 version play the "R=2,5" version at blitz and the latter outsearched the R=2 version and won significantly more games. Since that litte experiment I use R=2,5 (3 near root). Slightly better IMO. Not unimportant: I do checks in the qsearch, and I think that can influence the results. Best regards, Bas. 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
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.