Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:46:25 03/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2004 at 18:10:13, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >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 If you do checks in the q-search, your non-null 12 ply search will _still_ kill your null 12 ply search...
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.