Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 15:35:04 07/11/02

Go up one level in this thread


On July 11, 2002 at 18:20:51, Omid David wrote:

>On July 11, 2002 at 18:04:37, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On July 11, 2002 at 17:46:36, Omid David wrote:
>>
>>>On July 11, 2002 at 17:41:08, Uri Blass 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).
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>I don't expect R=2 to gain more from greater speed than R=3. As a matter of fact
>>>as Dr.Hyatt recently mentioned with faster hardware in the future, R=3 might
>>>reach depths in which the total saving would be more significant than tactical
>>>deficiency (deeper search would compensate for it). In such cases one might even
>>>think of R=4 at some parts of the search tree (or as Dr.Hyatt just mentioned an
>>>adaptive R=3~4 value).
>>
>>I agree that R=3 and R=4 should be also considered.
>>
>>From my experience in GCP test suites at 5 minutes per move recursive R=3 got
>>the best results so far in GCP test suites(I do not know about games because I
>>did not test it for games at slow time control but I suspect that it is possible
>>that for movei R=3 may be even better than R=2 at the same time control).
>
>I think in blitz time controls R=2 will be by far stronger than R=3, since the
>search won't get deep enough and consequently:
>1. R=3 won't save too much search effort in comparison to R=2
>2. R=3 won't have time to search deeper to compensate its tactical deficiencies.
>
>But in deeper time controls especially in faster engines like Crafty, it'll
>perform better I believe.

1)Crafty is not using R=3 but R=2/3 so comparison between R=3 and R=2 is not
relevant for crafty.

2)Crafty is not doing checks in the first plies of the qsearch and I guess that
the result is bigger advantage for R=2 in blitz.

Uri



This page took 0.04 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.