Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 13:57:34 11/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 21, 2002 at 16:16:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On November 21, 2002 at 14:35:54, Tony Werten wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I think the idea of "one size fits all" is flawed.  I much prefer to measure the
>same
>thing different ways, so that I understand what is going on better.  A single
>point is
>just a point.  Two points give a line.  Three or more define a surface.  Each of
>which
>reveals more about what I am looking at than the previous case did...

Agreed, but in this case, time to solution is missing, wich is imo the most
important one.

Tony

>
>>
>>>
>>>Tony
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>GCP



This page took 0.19 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.