Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 04:14:13 11/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2002 at 07:13:04, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On November 22, 2002 at 07:00:19, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>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? > I did expect this :-) It is quite obvious since the *backbone* is R = 3, so the result of vrfd R = 3 will remain closer to std R = 3 in higher depths. > > >>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 0.01 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.