Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 10:07:38 08/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2001 at 12:54:32, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >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. I changed my mind. It seems that is not a simple variable you can turn on and see an improvement or something, without working out other parts of the prunning as well. I simply got crappy pvs on all the positions tried, so crappy even with a small bonus that I don't insist. >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.