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.