Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 04:00:19 11/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2002 at 06:52:57, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >Many things are not that obvious. Please read the "Conclusions" section for >other algorithms I tried but were inferior to the presented algorithm. > >One interesting point is that at depth 8, the size of the tree constructed by >vrfd R=2 was slightly larger than std R=2; at depth 9, vrfd constructed a >smaller tree, and the gap widens as we search deeper (see Figure 4). So, I >believe than on every program, starting from a certain depth, vrfd R=3 will >construct much smaller trees in comparison to std R=2. And the benefit will >increase as we search deeper. > You didn't expect this? It's fairly logical. vrfd R=3 is the same as R=3 below the first fail high. If you search deeper, you get bigger and bigger parts of the tree that are done with R=3 instead of R=2, so you'll get smaller trees at some point. -- GCP
This page took 0.02 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.