Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 20:00:39 11/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


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.

in addition Omid also proves that minimax without hashtables
and without nullmove and of course without alfabeta and with a
huge selective search and a huge qsearch is a far better
algorithm than alfabeta + nullmove + hashtables.

:)

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



This page took 0.02 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.