Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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
>>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 0.05 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.