Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 05:44:19 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 08:21:38, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>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. What evidence do you base this on? My program used a crafty-like qsearch and when I started adding more eval I had to up the FP margins too to get more benefit. The FP in crafty dates back to 1996(!) and has not been altered or tested since. I believe Robert is reevaluating it now. Also Extended FP/Limited razoring has been found not to work. >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. At four hours per move (needed to get comparative to DB), I think it is going to make little difference, especially when SE comes to play. -- GCP
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.