Author: Omid David
Date: 08:23:31 07/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2002 at 10:30:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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 I mean 'on many occassions' it finds with lower total search cost ;-)
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.