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 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.