Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 15:10:13 03/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2004 at 16:32:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 25, 2004 at 14:28:09, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>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 > >Null-move is better, but it is _not_ 200 elo better. Try it. Both Bruce and I >played some of these matches (null on vs null off). It is more like 50-60 Elo >improvement. I said 100. 200 would indeed be a little much :) But even 60 elo is a pretty clear difference; you would definitely notice that in a 10 game match. >And it _definitely_ isn't "2 plies". There is a great difference >in accuracy between 12 plies no null and 12 plies with null... You go 2 plies >deeper, but you don't outplay the no-null opponent like it would outplay itself >with a 2 ply handicap... I do checks in q-search which mitigates this problem somewhat. 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.