Author: Roland Pfister
Date: 06:52:34 06/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 1998 at 08:31:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 03, 1998 at 02:45:34, Roland Pfister wrote: > >> >>So do I. I just don't allow extensions if a nillmove is in the path. > > > >I do normal extensions and everything else, as I want that null move >search to fail high... and the best way to do so is to follow checks and >so forth to prove that "passing" is really ok, showing that the current >position is good enough that even passing doesn't hurt. Sounds plausible. My idea is that I search nullmoves with reduced depth and I don't want to undo that by following extensions. My tree is smaller and I hope to get to the next iteration by doing that, so that it will compensate for reducing my depth because I did not follow the extensions. Some time ago I did a statistic of cutoffs ( its actually in the development version of Patzer ) and noticed that nullmoves get the highest success rate ( 70 to 90 % iirc ), so I never thought of changing my way to do it. When I find the time I will try both ways on BS2830 or LCT2. I think that I have read something like that ( we reduced the depth, so we won't increase it by doing a extension ) in the Crafty source. Could be a year ago or so.
This page took 0.04 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.