Author: Tony Werten
Date: 11:33:28 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 19:09:01, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >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...! The academics are wrong here. Think about it. Your program finds the wrong move twice as fast, is that an improvement ? Your program finds the right move twice as slow as it found the wrong move before, is that worse ? Tony > > > >>-- >>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.