Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Verified Null-Move Pruning, ICGA 25(3)

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 03:42:39 11/22/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 22, 2002 at 06:31:40, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On November 22, 2002 at 06:11:54, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>You understand nothing out of research, and this is demonstrated by your call
>>for comparing search times.
>>Did Aske Plaat compare search times? Did Ernst Heinz compare search times in >his excellent "Adaptive null-move pruning" article?
>(Not sure about Plaat, been a while)
>You got that right, they were flawed in the same regard.
>>No, only Vincent who doesn't know anything out of science, calls for such an
>>erroneous comparison.
>Please, just because the people before you did it doesn't make it good.

Comparing search times has the following problems:

1. It is not reproducible:

    - If you manage to speed up your program (without algorithmic change),
      the results will be different.

    - If you move to another platform, the results will be different.

    - Even on the same very hardware with the same very program, you will
      not get the exact results of the previous test.

2. It is not generic:

    - dependant on your program's structure

    - dependant on your program's speed

    - dependant on your hardware

3. It is not accurate:

    I have conducted tests on thousands of positions during the past several
    months. Sometimes the computer was busier, sometimes it crashed and I had
    to restart it (Windows!), etc.


This page took 0.03 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.