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 0.01 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.