Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Null-Move: Difference between R = 2 and R = 3 in action

Author: Omid David

Date: 14:04:05 07/11/02

Go up one level in this thread


On July 11, 2002 at 16:55:19, Frank Phillips wrote:

>On July 11, 2002 at 16:38:50, Omid David wrote:
>
>>As part of an extensive research (will be published soon), we tested null-move
>>pruning with fixed depth reductions of R=2 and R=3 on about 800 positions of
>>"mate in 4" (searched to depth of 8 plies) and "mate in 5" (searched to depth of
>>10 plies). The results naturally show that R=2 has greater tactical performance
>>(greater number of checkmate detection). However, we also conducted about
>>hundred self-play matches under 60min/game time control between R=2 and R=3. The
>>outcome is a rather balanced result (R=2 only a little better). Considering that
>>the tests where conducted on a rather slow engine (100k nps), on faster engines
>>R=3 is expected to perform better.
>>
>>So, apparently R=2 is not _by_far_ better than R=3 as some assume. I believe
>>Bruce Moreland had also some good results with R=3 that show it's not too
>>inferior to R=2. Has anyone conducted similar experiments?
>
>Can you report anything about the constraints placed on R=3/2 (depth to
>frontier, number of pieces left etc) and whether your research indicates the
>effect of varying the constraints.
>
>Frank

Self-play matches where conducted using random opening book selection (no given
starting position). In test suites, all positions which one or both sides had
only king and pawns where discarded.





This page took 0.03 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.