Author: Omid David
Date: 01:47:16 07/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2002 at 02:39:38, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 13, 2002 at 02:22:00, Omid David wrote: > >>On July 13, 2002 at 02:07:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>I still do not understand which positions you talk about which R=2 >>>is finding and R=3 isn't. >> >>I read your other post, that's also my point: Although at fixed depth, R=2 is >>much better than R=3 (see also "adaptive null-move pruning" Heinz 1999), in >>practice R=3 performs about the same as R=2 since on many occasions it finds the >>correct move one ply later with lower search cost. > >By the way, if you have not found Vincent's post on double null move you should >look it up. It is a clear win for sure. Yes it's a nice idea. But the main null-move pruning deficiency is its tactical weakness due to horizon effect. Zugzwangs are not a major problem, and as Vincent points out, he invented the double null-move idea just to show that null-move pruning is OK. Now nobody doubts effectiveness of null-move pruning at all, the only discussion nowadays is the depth reduction value.
This page took 0.04 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.