Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 09:54:32 08/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2001 at 10:21:12, Rémi Coulom wrote: >On August 20, 2001 at 01:03:30, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: > >>>> >>>>From this +/- oscillation of the score, I guess that you do not give a big >>>>enough bonus for being on the move. This what kills your null move. Just add a >>>>bonus for the player on the move so that the evaluation oscillates as little as >>>>possible. Null move should work much better then. >>>> >>>>Rémi >>> >>>Interesting that you use a bonus. >>>Anyway in this particular position, my guess (just my guess) would be that if >>>r=3 is used, a bonus would be no good for nullmove, as nullmoving steal an >>>important tempo for the side to move. > >It is not good for null move because it causes less nullmoves to fail high. if you say so...(i was supposing the oposite, more failhighs when substracting 3 plies.) >But >it is better overall, because it should produce a much more consistant search. Mmmh... I will see that in a few long matches. Antonio. >> >>nullscore = -search(-beta, -beta+1, depth-3, 1); >> >>=> he is using R=2 >> >>Georg > >The value of depth reduction is not relevant here. Whatever the value used for R >(2 or 3), there will be many cases where the reduction will be odd (1 ply away >from the leaves) or even (2 plies away from the leaves). > >Remi
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.