Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:37:37 07/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2002 at 17:27:50, Omid David wrote: >On July 11, 2002 at 17:20:36, Andrew Dados 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? >> >>Since you didn't specify what engine you have used I assume from your experiment >>it was something which didn't do checks in qsearch. >> >>I think your experiment is of little meaning. >> >>What data would be interesting here is tree size reduction at different depths >>in 'normal' positions; then match result with average depth of 11-14 (this is >>low end of what most engines reach at current hw with tournament tc). >> >>For my engine which does most checks in qsearch R=3 compared to R=2 reduces tree >>size by 15-40% at depth=11. It misses some deep, quiet threats comparing to R=2 >>(forks, some passed pawn combi, etc), but its WAC result at 5s/position (amd 450 >>then) was almost the same (worse by 2 positions if my memory serves). >> >>In very limited nunn-style matches of 32 games g/15 R=3 was never worse then R=2 >>for my engine. >> >>When engine has stripped down qsearch ala Crafty it will need more depth to >>offset additional null reduction. >> >>Please redo your experiment with fritz which does do checks in qsearch. >> >>-Andrew- > >The tree size, etc have been calculated. But that's even not the point. The >point is that in practice by changing the R from 2 to 3, the engine won't lose >too much strength since on many occasions the faster search by R=3 will find the >correct move one ply later but won't waste for that too much. (Although the >research wasn't about this point at all, I just found this point interesting). > >>For my engine which does most checks in qsearch R=3 compared to R=2 reduces >>tree size by 15-40% at depth=11. It misses some deep, quiet threats comparing >>to R=2 > >The fixed depth search on test suites shows that R=2 is clearly far stronger >than R=3, no surprises there. Of course R=3 misses many tactical threats as you >mentioned in fixed depth comparison to R=2. I think this last should be expected. But the point should be that R=3 should actually go deeper, maybe a ply. Which _might_ gain back the tactical losses found at equal depths.
This page took 0.04 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.