Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 12:31:53 08/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks for the full response Bruce. The commets on your test methodology are valuable. I certainly was not picking on Ernst. Given the published results of his systematic tests on a variety of test suites, R=2/3 looks attractive. My point was really slightly off topic: about how exactly you evaluate the benefits of changes. In my case I think with R=3 I see more tactical failures when playing Crafty or the like, but doubt these are due to more aggressive null move. More likely they can be reduced by removing unhelpful extensions, improving king safety (in many cases) and speeding up the search. The other thought was that, logically, if the increase from (R=1 to R=2) was good at some time in the past, then the increase from (R=2 to R=3) must also be good at some stage. Presumably when speeds have increased the average depth sufficiently to offset the side effects. 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.