Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 03:01:24 11/22/02

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?

"It is impossible, because I couldn't do it." --Vincent Diepeveen



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.