Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 05:21:38 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
>>>>We know they didn't prune. So they could have even been >>>>stronger. >>> >>>Hello? How can you know this? The better your eval is the >>>more pruning is going to hurt. >> >>Hi there! :-) Maybe you can explain this statement, because I don't see it. >>thing is for sure, if you ask me, with a lousy eval you get lousy pruning. >Maybe I should have asked what kind of pruning first :) How about nullmove? For many nodes near the leaf you prune on the basis of a qsearch alone. Then, if no good captures, you practically prune a couple of plies away on the basis of one eval! >For sorts of futility pruning, this is my general observation which is >confirmed by Vincent. No wait, this is a different matter. Vincent just doesn't like FP. And I don't either. For Crafty-like qsearches it works ok. But I don't like such a qsearch. >For nullmove, thats a different matter. They thought they would get deep >enough to beat Kasparov without it. And they were right. >Considering that Kasparov is mainly a tactical player it seems an >acceptable strategy not to miss _anything_ the first 10-12 plies >and use loads of extensions, rather than use something tactically >more risky to get a bit more strategical depth. >If it lacked strategically, they could always add more eval. Ok, they succeeded in beating Kasparow, and that was the purpose of it all. HOWEVER, it could have ended 5-1 :-) Whether the nullmove version would have been weaker tactically, I am not so sure about that. Personally I think not. Take you own program, give it a fixed time per position. Then compare with and without nullmove. Which one sees more tactically? For my program it is absolutely no question. Best regards, Bas.
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.