Author: Tony Werten
Date: 09:57:24 11/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 12:31:43, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On November 20, 2002 at 12:05:09, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On November 20, 2002 at 11:52:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>My very first thought after looking through this was: >>> >>>'You note that Heinz R=2/3 appears to be superior to >>>R=2 and R=3, but you don't include it in the comparison.' >> >>From the data, I'd guess that both are about equal. I'll have a test after >>diner. >> > >The important difference is that verified null-move pruning on average yields >greater tactical strength than standard R = 2. The smaller your quiescence >search is, the better will be the performance of verified null-move pruning. Unfortunately, XiniX has a very big quiescence search. But the first testpositions are not negative. Though the tree seems to be getting bigger, moves are found earlier sometimes. Tony > >Omid. > > >>Tony >> >>> >>>-- >>>GCP
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.