Computer Chess Club Archives




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

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
>>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 ?



This page took 0.02 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.