Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 12:55:56 11/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2002 at 15:23:54, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On November 26, 2002 at 12:26:58, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On November 26, 2002 at 12:18:10, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On November 26, 2002 at 07:09:07, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On November 25, 2002 at 22:32:28, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>> >>>>>>No. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it - it's not really fair >>>>>>to Omir as he does publish his stuff. >>>>> >>>>>In that case, I'll take it as a courtesy if you don't criticize any work I >>>>>happen to publish because it uses node counts instead of wall clock timings. >>>> >>>>I don't think it's fair to say 'what you published is crap, I have >>>>something much better but I'm not telling you what and I'm not going >>>>to publish it or post test results from it'. >>>> >>>>I think it's fair to say 'what you published is crap because you did >>>>not test it correctly and you compared only to inferior methods whereas >>>>better methods were already known and published' >>>> >>>>I don't think it's fair to criticise Omir because his scheme does >>>>not work in my engine. I think it's fair to criticise him because >>>>he did not include Heinz scheme in his tests. >>>> >>> >>>What do you mean by "he did not include Heinz scheme in his tests"? >>> >> >>Oh, if you mean adaptive null-move pruning, I didn't consider it since its >>tactical strength is not more than standard R=2. > >I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'tactical strength'. I suspect you mean >'can solve more test suite positions at the same depth'. That can be useful for >certain comparisons but isn't a good absolute measure of how good an algorithm >is. > >Assuming that verified nullmove is tactically stronger than standard R=2, then >it must be tactically stronger than adaptive nullmove (at the same depth). Does >this make it better? Of course not because adaptive nullmove may, for example, >use significantly less nodes at large depths. If this is the case (I don't know >if it is) then another comparison method may need to be used. > >The main thing is that it is accepted that adaptive null-move pruning is better >in real games than standard R=2, and surely that is the most important thing? >Test suites are a means to an end, not an end in itself! > >Personally, I am only interested if verified nullmove is better than adaptive >nullmove in real games. Now it seems you have shown that for your program >verified nullmove is likely better than standard R=2 in real games (because it >is tactically stronger, AND has smaller trees), which is interesting but not >really crucial because we already have something else better than standard R=2. > >Well done on writing the paper, it has certainly stimulated interest which is a >very good thing. But a comparison between adaptive nullmove and verified >nullmove would have made it much more interesting. > >Regards, >Peter > ><snip> In my tests verified null-move pruning constructed a smaller tree than adaptive null move pruning. It is reasonable since the "backbone" of verified null-move pruning is a fixed reduction of R=3, while the adaptive one uses both R=2 and R=3. So it is reasonable that on every program starting from a certain depth adaptive null-move pruning will always construct a smaller search tree.
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.