Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 12:53:25 11/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2001 at 15:12:13, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On November 05, 2001 at 14:34:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 05, 2001 at 13:02:31, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >> >>>why not >>> >>>val = -AlphaBeta(depth - 1 - R, -beta, -alpha); >>> >>> >>>Gerd >> >> >>In PVS that would be find. But the question is, what do you want to >>know from the null-move search. For a fail high, all you can discover >>is "if I do nothing, the score comes back >= beta" which is enough to >>convince me that I can simply return beta here, as playing _any_ move >>should raise the score even higher (non-zug of course). Does it matter >>_how_ good the score is? Or just that it is >= beta? > >In most nodes in PVS there is already a null window, but using the full window >here seems to be better for my program, empirically determined with BT2630 and >LCTII - may be some true scores in the transposition table? In the conditional >verification search i have slighly better results with an explicite null window. >No idea about the influence in practical games. for diep nodes reduction happens if i use [ beta-1 ; beta ] versus [alfa ; beta ]. This for the reason like Bob described.
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.