Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 23:46:45 08/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2001 at 00:42:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I should have added that I played this a good while before Ernst reported his >results in the JICCA. Stanback started me on this trail about 4 years ago or >so. He suggested using R=2 normally, but using R=1 near the tips to avoid >hiding the tactical problems that R=2 causes near to the tips (it collapses >me right into the q-search, which is a problem). That got me to thinking at This would suck, I bet. >the time that R=2 to R=1 was not a bad idea, but the R=1 really hurt performance >as you might guess. As my search got deeper (going from the P5/133 to the >P6/200 was quite a jump in speed, roughly 2.5X or so) R=2 became more >trustworthy and that was when I started toying around with R=2 or R=3, right >after the match you and I played for fun one night where you used R=3 and we >didn't see anything bad happen to Ferret as a result. I used R=4 and didn't see a problem. I've used very high R and haven't seen a problem. Other than not doing as well on tactical tests. >I believe that Ernst and I slightly disagreed on where to make the switch >from 3 to 2... I chose my "shift point" after playing lots of test matches, >while Ernst used test position results to adjust his. We ended up within a >ply of each other if I recall, although I think he might have shifted further >away from my shit point later on after more testing. > >I tried lots of things, including a gradual reduction from 3 to 2, using >fractional ply reductions... and I even tried R=4 to 2. Which didn't look >bad. However, I was a bit suspicious of R=3, so R=4 really got my super- >stition active. I used to hate R=2 if you recall. And I am pretty sure >that R=2 to R=3 is worse at blitz but better at longer time controls. But >not _hugely_ better... just "better". But I used games to judge this, which >might not be the best way. > >There is still plenty of things to try with this 'adaptive' behavior. I doubt >the last word has been written yet... John Stanback served as the catalyst for >me. It is possible that (a) he has experimented with this a lot as well, >although I didn't hear him mention R=3/2 when he was talking about R=2/1 back >then. (b) he heard about the adaptive R adjustment from someone else himself >and was just relaying what he had heard rather than what he had tried. > >No idea whether he was the first to suggest this or not. In my case, it was >simply a natural extension of his idea to go from 2/1 to test the 3/2 shift as >well. > >I can certainly run some test suite of your choice with R=2 and R=3/2 to see >the difference, if you want... I don't have time to do a lot of analysis of this now, since all of my machines are busy constantly until the end of the month. If you don't do it, I will do it later. bruce > > > > > > >>> >>>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.