Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 12:43:56 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 14:31:21, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On December 18, 2002 at 11:29:37, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On December 18, 2002 at 11:23:38, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On December 18, 2002 at 11:15:01, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>I further don't understand why all the fire is directed at me; fixed depth >>>>comparisons are the common accepted comparison methods, which are completely >>>>hardware independant. >>>> >>>>For the most recent examples take a look at Heinz and Plaat's numerous >articles, all of which were conducted in fixed depth. >>> >>>I would think that the best research is the one that improves upon >>>the mistakes of previous ones. >>> >> >>I am yet to be convinced that the methodology practiced by Hyatt, Schaeffer, >>Marsland, Buro, Plaat, Heinz, and others, is mistake. > >I have complaint with how this is applied, sometimes. > >One type of test involves making the tree smaller, period, while doing the same >kinds of work. If Schaeffer is going to test the history heuristic, that's >great -- if the tree is smaller, it's a win, because if you can consistently do >the *same* stuff in fewer nodes, that's always good. > >The only possible criticism I can have of something like this is if it doesn't >use enough test positions. > >If you are trying to prove that something sees more, what does seeing more mean? > You can blow the tree size up by extending everywhere, and you will see more in >a given depth. But depth is not the proper measure, since a larger tree size >will also take more time to search. > >If you want to "improve" a chess program in this manner, just incorporate a >two-ply search into your eval function. You'll find stuff two plies sooner. > >The only reason that your experiment shows that VR=3 is better than R=2 is that >the solution set was bigger *and* the node counts were smaller. You can >*assume* from that that the times are also reduced. > >You can't make these assumptions about R=3 as compared with VR=3. >And for that >matter, you can't make them about R=3 as compared with R=2, given the data you >present. > >Your data strongly implies that R=3 is better than R=2. That is disturbing, >since your paper regards the superiority of R=2 over R=3 as axiomatic. I didn't intend to reinvent the cycle. It has already been shown elsewhere that std R=2 is superior to std R=3. So I mainly focused on comparison between vrfd R=3 and std R=2 (as the strongest representitive of Standard Null-Move Pruning). > >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.