Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 10:22:30 11/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 20, 2002 at 12:57:24, Tony Werten wrote:

>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.
>

The size of the quiescence search has a direct impact on the efficiency of
verified null-move pruning. If you have a huge quiescence search, then the size
of the tree constructed by verified null-move pruning might exceed that of the
standard version.

Omid.

>
>Tony
>
>>
>>Omid.
>>
>>
>>>Tony
>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>GCP



This page took 0.08 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.