Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: I'm being too harsh, but still

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 01:20:05 12/18/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 18, 2002 at 03:53:48, Dave Gomboc wrote:

>My copy of the issue is at home, but my recollection is that he claimed
>superiority over R=2, but did not claim superiority over R=3.  (Or if he did,
>then this was based on experiments by others [notably Heinz] who already
>demonstrated the superiority of R=2 over R=3.  I agree that the data presented
>does not justify that claim without additional information.)

I think that what is going on here is that Omid assumed that he could take the
superiority of R=2 as a given, and build on that.

The idea is that if R=3 is considered to be worse than R=2, if you use a variant
of R=3 and it's better than R=2, it must also be better than R=3.

The data in Omid's paper supports the conclusion that R=3 is better than R=2.

On page 159, the number of WCS positions solved in 10 plies with R=2 is 850.
With R=3 it's 849.  R=3 is more than twice as fast.  If R=3 would have been
allowed to run longer than R=2, it would have found more positions, and
surpassed R=2.

You can draw the same conclusion from the table on page 157.  66 found with R=2,
65 found with R=3, in half the time.

I tested Gerbil with R=2 and R=3, on ECM, and Gerbil gets more solutions with
R=2, for any time value between 1 and 20 seconds (assuming a correct answer
holds to 20 seconds).  So for Gerbil, doing ECM pretty fast, R=2 is better.

I have not tested Omid's variant.

bruce



This page took 0.04 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.