Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 09:21:34 11/22/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 22, 2002 at 12:08:12, Sune Fischer wrote:

>On November 22, 2002 at 07:00:01, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>I think you are right, search times are no good, for many reasons.
>However, why don't you use nodes to solution, rather than nodes to depth?
>The priority is to solve the position as fast as possible, nodes to solution is
>a direct measure of that.
>If you measure nodes to ply 10, what does that say?
>It doesn't say a lot, I can get to ply 10 in 124 nodes, but the program won't be
>any good. So you need confirmation that you didn't wreck it by running the test
>Instead of having the test suite be an indirect verification test, why not use
>it directly?

Nodes to solution is a great idea. But there are some positions that need a
tremendous amount of time to be solved.

That idea will be practical only if we have a pool of positions that can be
solved within a reasonable time.

>Nice article and keep 'em comming,

Thanks. More under way ;-)

>I'll try it out sometime :)

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.