Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 04:06:07 09/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2000 at 13:47:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 25, 2000 at 11:41:18, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>Am I the only one who >> >>a) thinks that the kind of null move pruning that is done in Hyatt's Crafty is >>the reverse of what Ernst Heinz concludes in his paper about ANMP > > >I hope not. IE here is my code for that: > > null_depth=(depth > 6*INCPLY) ? 4*INCPLY : 3*INCPLY; > >Which says if the remaining depth is more than 6 plies, use R=3, while >if the remaining depth is <= 6 plies, use R=2. > Of course, now I see. My brain must have been lacking oxygene or something... >> >>I.E. When I do >> if (depth>6) >> R=2; >> else >> R=3; >>I get the best results. >>Why? > > >What is depth for you? Current ply? Or plies remaining? For me it is >plies remaining before dropping into q-search, which means I am doing the >same thing as Ernst, basically. Your code is the exact opposite of what we >are doing, assuming 'depth' means plies remaining and not depth from root of >the tree. I do the same as you and Ernst, as far as depth is concerned. "depth" means remaining ply in my program. And I've done extensive testing on both tactical, quiet and endgame positions, and in all three cases, my "reverse" (compared to yours) concept is by far the best for my program. It saves about 25% nodes on all test positions put together. Why is that... I don't get it.
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.