Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:57:00 07/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2002 at 11:17:12, Omid David wrote: For diep the adaptive nullmove, which i btw used in diep around 1995-1998 already, it was pretty interesting thought back then, but in the end R=3 always worked better. I have just to get a good compare run at Jan Louwman's auto232 players with diep with 2 versions, the only difference being R=3 versus adaptive nullmove (last 4 plies R=2), and that DIEP then nearly gets a ply less deeply, it definitely was reflected in score. A big problem is to get above that 10 simply for DIEP. >On July 13, 2002 at 10:50:52, Robert Hyatt 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. >> >>Note that he used fixed-depth. This is therefore not surprising since >>some lines will be searched one ply shallower.. > > >Of course. I merely did something like Heinz in "adaptive null-move pruning" (he >searched to fixed depths of 8, 10 and 12). But to get a clearer distinction, I >turned off checks in qsearch (that means in practice R=3 would perform better >than it did in those tests)
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.