Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:01:43 10/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2002 at 09:09:21, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 10, 2002 at 06:51:47, Alessandro Damiani wrote: > >>On October 10, 2002 at 02:01:51, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 09, 2002 at 23:06:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I had to stop the experiment sooner than I wanted, but I did find some >>>>interesting things out. >>>> >>>>1. at _very_ fast time controls (40 moves in 1 minute) null-move completely >>>>destroys non-null-move >>>>by a ridiculous margin. (this ended something like 60 wins, 5 losses, 8 draws) >>>> >>>>2. At longer time controls (40 moves in 10 minutes) non-null-move catches up >>>>somewhat. It still loses >>>>far more than it wins, but not _nearly_ so bad as test 1. (this was closer, but >>>>with fewer games played) >>> >>>It seems based on your data that null move is more important for blitz and not >>>for long time control. >>> >>>Interesting to know also the difference in plies >>> >>>If I compare depth after 3 minutes of search then I see for deep Fritz 3-5 plies >>>difference at 3 minutes per move between selectivity 0 and the default value 2. >>> >> >>By using a program with unknown source code you cannot be sure that >>selectivity=2 is only related to null-move. >> >>Alessandro > >Ok >I tested movei(R=3) against Movei(R=0) in the same positions and I get after 10 >minutes of search in every position depthes 12,15 with null move against depthes >10,11 without null move. > >Difference of 2-4 plies that may be even bigger if I use null move in a more >efficient way. > Depth doesn't mean a thing when you prune, try R=4 or R=5, you will reach even larger depth, and maybe also solve the testsets faster, but don't forget to see if it _playes_ better! ;) -S.
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.