Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 21:43:35 11/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2002 at 00:12:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 26, 2002 at 21:47:00, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On November 26, 2002 at 20:02:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 26, 2002 at 16:21:00, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>On November 26, 2002 at 15:58:06, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 26, 2002 at 15:55:56, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>So it is reasonable that on every program starting from a certain depth >adaptive null-move pruning will always construct a smaller search tree. >>>>> >>>>>Don't you mean the other way around? >>>>> >>>> >>>>Yes :-) >>>> >>>>Starting from a certain depth, verified null-move pruning will always construct >>>>a smaller search tree than the adaptive one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>GCP >>> >>> >>> I am doing some testing now. First thing I noticed is that for WAC, the >>>time-squared >>>measurement went down very significantly for your algorithm. And I have not >>>modified >>>anything such as turning null-move off when low material happens, since your >>>idea will >>>catch the zug problems. >>> >>>I am playing a match between old and new, and at the moment the result is >>> >>>5 wins, 2 losses, 13 draws, new version is ahead. Not enough games, but it is >>>interesting... >>> >>>More as I get more info... >> >>Definitely interesting... >> >>BTW, since Crafty has strong extensions, I suggest that you also try reducing >>the depth by 2 plies (instead of 1) on fail-high reports. In the "Conclusions" >>section I reported that in this case the tactical strength was lower than std >>R=2 on occasions; but considering the fact that its search tree was also far >>smaller, it is still an interesting option. >> >>In the paper, my goal was to present an algorithm tactically stronger than std >>R=2, and with smaller search tree. In practice however, other values might work >>even better. > >Intuition tells me that 1 or 2 is wrong. That is should be some sort of >proportional value insteadk. I've been fiddling with the adaptive depth >and the extension limit as well, playing with scaling it proportionally rather >than lopping things off in a static way... I think that reducing the depth by >some percentage might make more sense... I also believe that an adaptive value should exist here. For more than a month now, I have been testing different adaptive values; I have found some improvements, but no breathtaking ones yet...! > >But I will fiddle and test a while and report back if I find anything that >improves it further, since it is your idea... Maybe we can write together a paper as a sequel to adaptive/verified null-move pruning.
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.