Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Proving something is better

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 0.17 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.