Author: Omid David
Date: 23:22:00 07/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2002 at 02:07:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >I still do not understand which positions you talk about which R=2 >is finding and R=3 isn't. I read your other post, that's also my point: Although at fixed depth, R=2 is much better than R=3 (see also "adaptive null-move pruning" Heinz 1999), in practice R=3 performs about the same as R=2 since on many occasions it finds the correct move one ply later with lower search cost.
This page took 0.04 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.