Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:04:01 03/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2000 at 07:57:12, Bruce Cleaver wrote: >All - > >Has anyone experimented with dynamically adjusting R for nullmove reduction? >The idea is that some positions deserve R = 1, others R = 2, maybe some even >deserve R = 3, if your stomach is strong enough. The value of R could be based >either on the distance from Beta, or on other factors (as used in fractional ply >extensions). > >Perhaps this could save search time or boost confidence that you aren't missing >deep tactics with a static R value. > > If it has been tried before , and found wanting, well then obviously some >imposter hijacked my email ID and posted this message.... :^) > > >Bruce It has been done (and is still being done.) I have been doing it for well over a year. Ernst wrote a paper describing how he implemented the same idea (we apparently tried the same idea independently and liked the results although I am not sure we are doing it in identical ways). I have been using R=3 near the root and R=2 near the leaves for a long while. I have had the idea on my 'todo list" for trying continuous values rather than discrete values, since I already do fractional plies. IE R=3 near the root tapering to R=2 near the leaves, but maybe R=2.5 in the middle, roughly.
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.