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 0.01 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.