Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 14:50:51 08/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2001 at 15:58:31, Tom King wrote: >Following recent discussions re: using R=2 for null move vs. using R=2 near the >tips, and R=3 nearer the root, I ran a little test. > >Here's the results of running Francesca R=2 vs Francesca R=2/3 (running for 12 >hours, playing blitz, on my little Celeron 500 machine). > >Francesca R=2 : 48.2 % >Francesca R=2/3 : 51.8 % > >109 games were played. > >A small sample, but as I alluded to in earlier postings, R=2/3 might be >*slightly* better for Francesca. Loads more games would be needed to verify this >with any certainty, of course.. > >Rgds, >Tom Imagine that you are flipping a coin 100 times, and after 99 flips one side is leading 50-49, and you flip it again and it's either exactly even or one side is slightly better. That's a lot of significance to ascribe to that last flip. I think that you can say that there isn't a *huge* difference. More than that I doubt you can say. But my bet is that we knew that anyway. 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.