Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Null move R=2 vs Null move R=2/3

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..

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.


This page took 0.12 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.