Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 11:59:04 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 I do something similar to Ernst Heinz's approach with R=3 in some places and R=2 in others. At the time I implemented it, I ran some test-sets and found it marginally better, but nothing spectacular. I've just run a 200-game match between my standard version and an R=2 version. This test has 100 starting positions and the two versions plays white and black sides of each position. The result was: standard 101.5 nullR=2 99.5 The games were 2 1 with no pondering. Average depths (for what they're worth): standard 10.26, nullR=2 10.22 Cheers Andrew
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.