Author: Ernst A. Heinz
Date: 12:22:19 09/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hi David, >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. That your scheme makes the search visit fewer nodes is hardly surprising because it prunes more heavily in the far-out, i.e., larger part of the search tree. The real surprise for me would be if it conserves tactical abilities of your program. As described in my publications about the subject, I have also tested your scheme. It reduced the number of nodes visited while at the same time compromising the tactical strength of "DarkThought". My published version of adaptive null-move pruning does not do so. It seems to strike a good balance between savings on one hand and retaining the tactical strength of the search on the other. =Ernst=
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.