Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 08:20:58 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 11:07:49, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >Have you ever conducted any research? If so, you would have known that a >researcher doesn't examine everything since the creation of earth, he takes >something which is known to be better and tries to improve it. Which is why you investigated Heinz's adaptive nullmove. Oh, wait... >I didn't think that someone will seriously claim that std R=3 is better than >std R=3; but now, I'd be glad to write another paper comparing those two, and >also mentioning fixed time comparisons if people find it interesting. Because >although not appearing the article, I have conducted tens of other types of >experiments (including fixed time) and I _know_ that vrfd R=2 is clearly >superior to std R=3. 'Everything you know is wrong' Whether R=2 or R=3 is better depends very much on the search below that nullmove. For a Crafty-style program (which Genesis appears to be), R=2 is going to be superior over R=3. But you can't claim that is a general truth. -- GCP
This page took 0.03 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.