Author: Roberto Nerici
Date: 00:42:00 03/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2004 at 03:02:04, Tord Romstad wrote: >On March 26, 2004 at 02:39:29, Johan de Koning wrote: > >No, I do lots of pruning besides null-move, and reach rather high search >depths even without it. Here are the number of nodes I need to search >n plies (n from 1 to 13) with and without null move from the opening >position: I think this makes a big difference to the result of the null move versus non-null move test. Most people when first writing an engine (this includes me) add null-move to a search that has no other pruning at the time and this makes a huge difference. People here have pointed out several times that pruning schemes overlap; any one scheme is usually more effective on its own that in combination with others. >Plies Nodes (null move off) Nodes (null move on) > 1 55 55 > 2 228 261 > 3 965 439 > 4 3,741 2,318 > 5 13,213 6,638 > 6 35,056 18,964 > 7 37,398 36,095 > 8 77,226 60,240 > 9 117,274 109,939 >10 239,355 237,775 >11 555,661 412,969 >12 1,942,523 1,084,089 >13 12,060,312 3,531,279 > >I have no good explanation for the bizarrely irregular effective >branching factor of my non-nullmove search here. I wonder how it is >possible that hardly any nodes are needed in the 7th iteration. Two possibilities: 1) there's something wrong at the 7th iteration 2) you've stumbled onto something amazing at your 7th iteration and just need to make it do the same thing on the later ones... :-> Roberto/.
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.