Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Null-Move: Difference between R = 2 and R = 3 in action

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 07:30:33 07/13/02

Go up one level in this thread


On July 13, 2002 at 02:22:00, Omid David wrote:

>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.

Not on 'many occassions'. *always* here.

I only remember like 1 or 2 artificial positions in testsets where it
takes 1 ply more. So that's 1 or 2 positions in 100000, whereas you
get a ply more with R=3.

Best regards,
Vincent

>Best regards,
>Vincent




This page took 0.05 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.