Computer Chess Club Archives




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

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,
>>Best regards,

I mean 'on many occassions' it finds with lower total search cost ;-)

This page took 0.03 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.