Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 13:14:17 11/21/02

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.
>
>--
>GCP


Actually they are _not_ "nonsense".  They are a perfectly useful metric for
comparing
things.  Fixed time tests are just as useful in some ways, and just as
nonsensical in other
ways.

Fixed depth works fine unless you somehow believe that one program is doing way
more
work per node than the other, so that the tree sizes for a fixed depth don't
compare very
well.  Otherwise it is perfectly ok and has been used for 25 years in testing
parallel
chess engines and reporting results.  It avoids the problem I had in the DTS
paper, of
being unable to produce an exact node count (for one instance).



This page took 0.39 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.