Author: Uri Blass
Date: 19:08:22 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2002 at 22:00:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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? No I see that after the first reduction of 1 ply you have a recursive null move pruning with no 1 ply reductions. I do not see a recursive null move pruning with no 1 ply reduction in part of the tree with R=2. I think that you should apologize for always assuming that other people have bugs. Uri
This page took 0 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.