Author: Nagendra Singh Tomar
Date: 02:02:13 10/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2002 at 04:52:26, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Do you really believe depth 0's result so much as to trust it for a fail high. tomar
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.