Author: Tony Werten
Date: 11:35:54 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2002 at 14:33:28, Tony Werten wrote: >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 ? In addition, the academic way would be that an algoritm that prunes all moves and returns 0 is an improvement. > >Tony > >> >> >> >>>-- >>>GCP
This page took 0.1 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.