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 >>>>suite. >>>> >>>>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). 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). Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.