Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 15:05:15 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 %

Please also compare with R=3 everywhere.

I did extensive tests with 3 combinations
  a) R=3
  b) R=3 and near tips R=2 (last 4 ply)
  c) first nullmove R=3 second and further nullmove: R=2

the last i abandonned quick as you need to store a bit more in hashtable
to do it and i can afford a bit but i founded it a waste of time
to try.

i experimented most between a and b. And with a i search usually
a ply deeper than with b, but i still am doubting which is better.

Some experiments indicated that at auto232 player i score better
with b.

Opponents were the commercial engines. I still find it hard
to conclude anything from play against the same engine.

I bet R=3 comes out as best when you do that with francesca.

>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



This page took 0.07 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.