Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Doesn't appear to work for me (full data)

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 16:09:01 11/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 20, 2002 at 19:02:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On November 20, 2002 at 18:54:30, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>>Could you please compare (Adptv + small quiesc) vs (Vrfd +small quiesc) ?
>
>When I have more time.
>
>If you want more data, I expect others will post results
>from their programs as well. Maybe those are more encouraging...
>
>>BTW, please allocate more time for each position. The deeper you go, the >greater will be the advantage of verified null-move (see Figure 4 of my
>>article).
>
>Compared to R=2! But it scales inferior to R=3. So I don't expect
>more time to give it an advantage compared to Heinz Adaptive Nullmove.
>
>>Or you might want to conduct a test to a fixed depth of 10 plies, and then
>>compare the total node count and number of solved positions.
>
>Fixed depth tests are nonsense. I play games with a clock, not with
>a fixed amount of plies.
>

One comparison method once I thought of, was letting each algorithm search as
much as it wants until it solves the position. Then compare the total node
counts of different algorithms. While this is a good practical test, I think the
academics will still appreciate the classical fixed depth comparisons...!


>--
>GCP



This page took 0.08 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.