Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:52:26 10/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2002 at 04:24:24, Nagendra Singh Tomar wrote: >On October 28, 2002 at 02:45:33, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 28, 2002 at 02:00:06, Nagendra Singh Tomar wrote: >> >>>On October 28, 2002 at 01:48:02, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On October 28, 2002 at 01:17:41, Nagendra Singh Tomar wrote: >>>> >>>>>What all reasons can you think of for a ply 'n+1' searching lesser nodes than >>>>>ply 'n' search. >>>>> >>>>>regds >>>>>tomar >>>> >>>>The most obvious is a ply n search had really bad move ordering that gets much >>>>improved for ply n+1 thanks to the hash moves saved in the hash table. >>> >>>correct. >>> >>>One more reason can ne that 'n' was just small enough to deny null-move. >>>null-move in 'n+1' ply search saved a lot of nodes. >> >>I use null move from the first ply so there is not n that is small enough to >>deny null move. >> >>The only case when I do not start by checking null move is when the remaining >>depth is 0 or in some other special cases when I suspect a zugzwang. >> >>Uri > >But the idea behind null move is to try first with a lesser depth search and see >if it fails high .. >if you start null move search from first ply .. what is the "lesser depth" you >are going to try for ply 1 and even 2 > >regds >tomar depth 0 is less than 1 or 2. Uri
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.