Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:13:09 12/18/02
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. What he does is that if a null-move search fails high, he then does the verification search to see if it also fails high. And inside this specific verification search, no further verification searches will be done. I have no idea why Vincent writes such incorrect stuff... > >> >>All with all a very sad article. The only good thing about it is >>the quantity of tests done. >> >>The test methods and the implementation and the conclusions are >>grammar school level. >> >>I do not know who proofread it, but it gotta be idiots or people who >>didn't care at all. >> >>Amazingly Bob defended Omid here and said nothing was wrong with >>the article. > >Bob also found that verification search is good for crafty based on his post. >Bob is not the onlyone who defended Omid. Actually I found it "non-conclusive" as I reported. It helped in some places, hurt in others, and the end-of-term stuff here (and then the SMT stuff on this new machine) side-tracked me for a while... I still have plans to play with it further. > >I also defend him and you are the only poster who attacks him(even posters who >said that it did not work for them did not say that it is very bad). >Most of what you say is not correct. > >Uri
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.