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 0.01 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.