Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Verified Null-Move Pruning, ICGA 25(3)

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
>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.



This page took 0.01 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.