Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 15:02:32 11/22/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 22, 2002 at 17:52:50, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>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

standard R=2 is not known to be better than standard R=3(It seems that at least
for movei R=3 gives better results).


This page took 0.06 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.