Computer Chess Club Archives




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

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 0.07 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.