Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 11:28:09 03/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2004 at 13:35:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said "If A then B", which you corrupted to "If !A then !B". I stand by my statement: If you implement null move correctly, it _will_ win a 10 game match. 2 ply -> 100 elo -> dominance. Someone can do the math here on confidence regions, but I'm very sure the version with null move has a 95% chance or better to win. anthony
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.