Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:46:48 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 04:20:05, Bruce Moreland wrote: >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 R=2 is better for Gerbil at fast time control. It may be interesting to know if it is also better at slower time control because I remember that omid claimed few months ago that based on his experience R=3 is better than R=2 at long time control(he tested it in games and it was without verification search). It may be interesting to know if R=2 continue to solve more positions also at 180 seconds per position(of course this test may take a long time but you can get first impression but solving only part of the ECM suite with R=3 and R=2 at 180 seconds per position). Uri
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.