Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:00:12 07/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2002 at 16:38:50, Omid David wrote: I use R=3 always. DIEP searches a ply deeper with it versus combining it with R=2 not to mention doing R=2 always. In your tactical testsets you should give IMHO the R=3 program a ply more. I can imagine programs that do all kind of dubious things to need less nodes/systemtime a ply (forward pruning, futility pruning, lazy evaluation), that they can do with R=2. >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?
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.