Author: Martin Giepmans
Date: 16:58:54 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2001 at 18:15:37, William Bryant wrote: >On August 07, 2001 at 16:03:34, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>I've often heard people state that null move with R=3 is better than with R=2, >>but I have never ever ever gotten a test result that indicates this. >> >>I've tried everything. I've tried it throughout the tree, I've tried it near >>the root, and I've tried it near the tips. >> >>My measurement standard is ECM positions solved, which *always* goes down. >> >>What are other people doing that I'm not doing, or are people testing in some >>other way, if so is their way better or worse? >> >>I would test Crafty both ways (it's currently doing R=3 some places), but my >>machines will be busy until after the WMCCC. >> >>bruce > >Bruce, > >As a complete amature, I can't get any positive benifits with R=3 either. I >have always assumed that it was my limited evaluation code. Not enough >information to keep R=3 from missing good/bad positions until much deeper. > >Let me know if you find an answers > >William I think this is a good point. A more aggressive way of pruning requires more "support" from the eval. Martin
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.