Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 08:50:30 08/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2001 at 22:11:22, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On August 09, 2001 at 17:20:26, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>I am doing something different that ends up to be similar in concept. >>I do a regular nullmove, but if it fails high, I do not return beta, I just >>reduce the depth = depth-(R+1) and do a normal search. >>So, you do first a shallow search and then a nullmove. If both fails high, you >>cut off. I do a nullmove and then a shallow search, If both fails high I cut >>off. I avoid too the problems with zugswangs. Your case might be better in those >>cases when the shallow search does not fail high, because you do a search at a >>normal depth later. However, in my case I just have to rely on the result of the >>shallow search. > >What does this do to the size of the tree? Few tests I did showed that this was bigger than nullmove alone. I do not remember the numbers but it was something like R=3 with my system (I do not how to call it, it would be nullmove razoring rather than nullmove pruning?) had aproximately the same size as R=2 null move alone. I chose to use R=3 with my system at that time. However, I made a lot of changes and I delayed retrying this. Then, i changed back to R=2 (with my system) because it improve results in WAC without much testing. My program is in the first stages of development everything I add or change might make a difference on what I tested already. For that reason, many times when in doubt I just choose what I like or what it looked safer to me. If you are interested, I can run some test on tree size. Let me know. Regards, Miguel > >bruce
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.