Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Sune Fischer

Date: 14:06:58 11/22/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 22, 2002 at 12:21:34, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>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.

That is true.

But what do you conclude if a new algorithm produces a smaller tree, but also
solves fewer positions, or vice versa; Solves more positions but also produce a
larger tree?

I think that must be the danger of aiming for two seperate optimizations.


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.