Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 14:52:50 11/22/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 22, 2002 at 17:06:58, Sune Fischer wrote:

>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?

Then I can't conclude anything. But for this paper, I wanted to outperform
standard R=2, which is widely known to be better than standard R=3 (see Heinz
1999). The presented results show that the tree size is smaller than std R=2,
and the tactical strength greater. That's pretty much enough to show vrfd R=3 is
better than std R=2.

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

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.