Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 04:58:52 06/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 2004 at 07:37:30, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On June 03, 2004 at 03:21:07, Daniel Shawul wrote: > >>Hi >> >>I used to use adaptive null move pruning. >>But now since i added checks only in the first ply of quiescence search(horizon) >>I think it is time to use R=3 everywhere. Is it safe? >>Do i need to do other safe guard searches like verified null move >>pruning? >> >>best >>daniel > >I use R=3 everywhere (checks in q-search). Even in the endgame? I never had any success with R>2 in the endgame. >It is not a pure win though: you see more in some areas and less in others. You can try to compensate by using a dynamic reduction factor. I use R=3 most of the time, but depending on the position it also happens that I use R=1, 2 or 4. The main factors are the amount of material left on the board, the king safety for the side to move, and the passed pawn eval for the side not to move. The idea is to avoid using a too big reduction factor in positions where the risk of horizon effect problems is big. My experience is that a dynamic reduction factor works better than all the more common alternatives (pure R=2, pure R=3, verified null move pruning, and adaptive null move). Tord
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.