Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:34:23 03/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2001 at 23:07:49, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >>>>Why does it make sense? I have not yet tried it but I don't understand why >>>>should it be better? Do you have any opinions? I allways want to understand the >>>>features I put into my engine and I don't get this one... >>> >>>Easy -- the relative cost of a depth-reduced null-move search >>>at frontier nodes (with a remaining depth of 1 ply) is just >>>too high. Most normal searches from there also go straight into >>>quiescence mode and the gain of null-move cutoffs does not seem >>>to outweigh the added null-move search effort. >>> >>>=Ernst= >> >>I tried this for a quick test. It is actually slower overall than doing >>null-move everywhere. A couple of positions were faster. But more were >>slower. I ran all the kopec positions... > >As usual, your mileage may vary and it does not work for >all programs. Do you apply futility pruning at frontier nodes? > >If not, this may explain your negative results because you are >much less selective at frontier nodes then which increases the >chances of the null-move overhead to pay off. > >=Ernst= I don't do futility pruning at all... I stopped a year or two ago...
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.