Author: Tony Werten
Date: 10:40:05 11/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 13:22:30, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >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. Yes, first tests do seem to indicate this. I'll toy around with it some more. Tony > >Omid. > >> >>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.