Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:41:08 07/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
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). This is not the right test. It is clear that if you search to fix depth R=2 is going to be better. The question is what happens when you search for the same time. 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. I think that a better test should include different programs and not the same program against itself. Another point is that R=2 and R=3 are not the only possibilities. > >So, apparently R=2 is not _by_far_ better than R=3 as some assume. I suspect that it is dependent on the program(results may be different for programs with different qsearch and different evaluation). Uri
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.