Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 19:00:21 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2002 at 21:43:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 21, 2002 at 21:38:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On November 20, 2002 at 16:55:41, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>Of course it doesn't work for you. you compare searchtimes >>with each other. In his article he compares search depths with >>each other. He claims 10 ply fullwidth is better finding >>a bit more at testsets than 10 ply >>with nullmove for tactical reasons, >>forgetting to tell of course what time it takes to get it. >> >>You are comparing search depths which is correct. He isn't. >>See his article. > >He also did games and at least it was clearly superior in games relative to R=2. >It may be interesting to find out if it is also superior in games relative to >R=3 or relative to other algorithms. > >Uri It means his implementation of nullmove has a bug obviously. Also his 50% figure is wrong. He claims that R=3 always is outperforming his algorithm only by factor 2. That is wrong. It should not be factor 2. It should be several plies of course. And default R=2 also should outperform (timewise) his algorithm bigtime. His tests don't show it. It is trivial that a reduction of 1 ply is going to be more expensive than a nullmove reduction of R=2 + 1 = 3 ply. Do you see that too?
This page took 0.03 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.