Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 15:34:46 12/17/02

Go up one level in this thread

On December 17, 2002 at 18:21:28, Uri Blass wrote:

>On December 17, 2002 at 18:11:20, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>On December 17, 2002 at 17:30:36, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>if you go back in time a bit you see that i had
>>major problems with Omids article and posted it here.
>>there is more than just the problems you see there.
>>also look at his homepage and get the positions he tested
>>and then look to his node counts. for a mate in 2 position
>>where i need like a couple of hundreds of nodes to get to 10 ply
>>he needs 10 million nodes. then R=3 reduces that more.
>>also his implementation is buggy of course. it doesn't take into
>>account problems with transpositions. a classical beginners problem.
>>But most important is that verification search is not something new
>>it is a buggy implementation of something already described years ago
>>with only 'novelty' that omid turns off nullmove *completely*
>>after he finds a nullmove failure.
>No he does not.
>There is no point in the tree that he turns off nullmove completely.

To be more correct he turns off null move only in some cases when the remaining
depth is 1 so there is no time for verification search but when the depth is big
most of the nodes when the remaining depth is 1 come only after null move so
verification search is not needed and again he is using null move.

When the depth is big enough he is doing normal null move with R=3 in most of
the nodes.


This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.