Author: Johan de Koning
Date: 00:01:12 03/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2004 at 01:48:18, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 26, 2004 at 01:41:07, Johan de Koning wrote: > >>On March 25, 2004 at 19:46:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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... >> >>Yes, it will win a fair share of the endgames. :-) >> >>But besides that, I think it's wishful thinking. >>Like wishing DB's 11 ply is going to kill Fritz' 14 ply. >>It's not going to happen. Even if DB would be alive and would accept >>the challenge, it still would not be going to happen. >> >>But back to the issue: we're not talking about 12 versus 10 ply here. >>At roughly 100 M nodes / search we're talking about 9 ply full-width >>versus 14 ply full-nulled. Assuming both are reasonable tuned, my money >>is on a 300 Elo difference. That is, in a computer pool. Less against >>humans, more against itself. >> >>Consider it an invitation to you and to Bruce to run more experiments. >>Or at least as an invitation to wonder why that 50-60 Elo improvement >>was quite below expectation. > >Suppose that the thing that was broken with null move was the depth reduction >(e.g. it was twice what you wanted with R=4/6 instead of 3/2). Or some other >strangeness. Then what sort of result would you expect to see? I'm not talking about broken (though quite possible) but about ill tuned. But I think I'm missing your point, if you were making any. :-) Please followup if you think it's worth it. ... Johan
This page took 0 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.