Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:48:52 11/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2002 at 13:38:32, José Carlos wrote: >On November 23, 2002 at 12:53:36, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >> >>>Nodes to solution should be a better parameter. >>> >> >>Provided that you have a pool of positions that can be solved within a >>reasonable time! > > You should find them to provide useful data. Tree reduction doesn't mean >anything if the solution is not found. Nodes to solution is definetly the >important data. > > José C. Maybe I am overlooking something, but as best I could tell, his new algorithm solved more positions than R=2, at the same depth. _and_ the tree was smaller. I don't see how that can be considered a bad way of reporting things. He ran to fixed depth, which I personally think is very reasonable since it provides something that can be repeated. He reported the sizes of the trees, which shows that his approach searches a smaller tree than straight R=2. And he provided the number of correct solutions showing that his approach is better than straight R=2 also. To consider his data invalid, you would have to assume one of the following: 1. His positions are _all_ zugzwang positions, so that any zugzwang detection would make it perform better than straight null-move R=2. 2. Somehow his search makes searching the PV much harder, and the non-PV moves much easier, so that reporting the time to solution would somehow show larger numbers for his new code, even though the time to complete a depth is lower. (I assume the time to depth is lower since he used the same program for both and I don't think his NPS will be affected by the algorithm significantly). I find either of those to be a bit hard to accept, and I concluded that what he did worked for him. Whether it will work for the rest of us or not is another thing...
This page took 0.01 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.