Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Of course using search times it doesn't work

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.

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 0.01 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.