Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:35:03 03/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2004 at 10:02:57, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On March 23, 2004 at 18:18:51, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 23, 2004 at 17:28:17, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On March 23, 2004 at 17:13:46, Aivaras Juzvikas wrote: >>> >>>>On March 23, 2004 at 16:40:46, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 23, 2004 at 16:38:28, Aivaras Juzvikas wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>forgot to mention, i dont try null move on 0 ply >>>>> >>>>>Than what's your test set? >>>> >>>>test set?i just let two versions of my engine play each other a couple of 15 0 >>>>games, the result is either a draw or a win for the one w/o null move, even tho >>>>it searches deeper as i already mentioned >>> >>>"a couple" meaning...? >>> >>>if it's two games, forget it. if it's 10 games, forget it too. start believing >>>it when it's 100 games... >> >>I think that if you do not get improvement with null move based on 10 games then >>there is good chance that you have a bug in the implementation. >> >>Uri > >I have to agree with Uri here. If your program plays weaker with null move >after 10 games, you screwed something up. > >Null move is simply _that big_. > >Getting 2 extra plys should show up long before 100 games . . . I have to disagree with you. You can implement null move incorrectly and still score better in ten games. The reason I say that is because I have seen it.
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.