Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:09:16 09/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2000 at 15:08:45, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >Hi Vincent, > >>So a combination of 3 and 2 ply on a depthleft basis , as opposed to my >>current rude way of always using R=3, and also when compared to the >>original idea from me some years or 5 ago to >>do the first nullmove with R=3 and the second with R=2, >>is a quite clever way to apply nullmove in the search, as using depthleft >>to decide on which Reduction factor you use means that it's not hurting >>your hashtables with wrong scores also. If you mix R=2 and R=3 using the >>number of nullmoves done as a basis, then this means that you might get >>cutoffs in positions where score is based upon R=3, which get returned >>in a position where you apply R=3 for the first time, practically doing R=3 >>as worst case. >> >>I think i directly start experimenting with adaptive nullmove again :) > >My sincere congratulations, you finally understood what >adaptive null-move pruning is all about! >=Ernst= There is one big problem however, just using R=3 always is taking care diep searches way deeper as using adaptive nullmove, though adaptive nullmove kicks butt at bs2830 testset, where diep solves 17 positions now, but many of the positions which did get solved anyway like Ne4, get still solved at 9 ply, but it takes 6 and a half minute to get there!!!!!! 6 minutes for 9 ply!!!!! that's very slow!!!! Note that i combine the adaptive nullmove pruning with the double nullmove, it works great the double nullmove in the far endgame, where the average program doesn't nullmove at all (with 1 piece), i'm searching up to 9 plies deeper, because i can use nullmove there, perhaps something for you to mention in your articles?
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.