Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:39:23 11/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2002 at 05:00:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 10, 2002 at 21:23:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>As far as null-move, remember it only made a 3.0 vs 3.1 difference when we >>ran those tests for Vincent a month or two back... > >Yes, but that is with a dynamic splitter that can handle multiple >splitpoints. PVS cannot resplit. If it _already_ makes 0.1 difference >with a dynamic splitter... :) > >The right thing to do would be to test this of course. > >-- >GCP I think my current code can be made to do this easily. However, the EPVS stuff I did was "current" thru 1988 and we were using null-move R=1 back then. EPVS was phased out and replaced by DTS in the 1988 ACM computer chess event... However, back to the main point. 3.0 vs 3.1 with my current search says (as I said many times) null-move does not have any significant influence on parallel search performance. I don't see anything that says that a dynamic algorithm will do better relative to PVS when you throw in null-move. I don't see why adding null-move would affect PVS any more than DTS or my current parallel search.
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.