Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 12:16:17 08/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2001 at 14:59:04, Andrew Williams wrote: >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 That's 201, but either way it would have been hard to come up with results that would differentiate between them less, but I'm sure you know that. > >The games were 2 1 with no pondering. Average depths (for what they're worth): > > standard 10.26, nullR=2 10.22 The Ernst paper claims a greater improvement with more depth than you could achieve in a 2 1. There's probably a lot of endgame depth distorting these numbers. He's talking about 12 middlegame plies. bruce > >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.