Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 21:04:33 11/21/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 21, 2002 at 16:57:34, Tony Werten wrote:

>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
>>>>>>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
>>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
>>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.

also calculate the branching factor of his thing.

6.9 for R=1
3.1 for R=2
3.2 for R=3

and for his verification search it is 3.2

There is something dead wrong in that program.

Also 4.3 million nodes on *average* he needs to finish a 9 ply
search with R=2.

That's *huge*. With R=1, which *does* give a 2 ply reduction
for nodes that fail high, he need 80 million nodes on average
to finish a 10 ply search for each position.

That's *huge* number of nodes to search to a small depth :)


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.