Author: Martin Giepmans
Date: 13:04:50 11/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 11:43:10, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > > ICGA Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 153-161, September 2003 > > > Verified Null-Move Pruning > > Omid David Tabibi and Nathan S. Netanyahu > > > Abstract > >In this article we review standard null-move pruning and introduce our extended >version of it, which we call verified null-move pruning. In verified null-move >pruning, whenever the shallow null-move search indicates a fail-high, instead of >cutting off the search from the current node, the search is continued with >reduced depth. > >Our experiments with verified null-move pruning show that on average, it >constructs a smaller search tree with greater tactical strength in comparison to >standard null-move pruning. Moreover, unlike standard null-move pruning, which >fails badly in zugzwang positions, verified null-move pruning manages to detect >most zugzwangs and in such cases conducts a re-search to obtain the correct >result. In addition, verified null-move pruning is very easy to implement, and >any standard null-move pruning program can use verified null-move pruning by >modifying only a few lines of code. > > >pdf: http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~davoudo/pubs/vrfd_null.pdf >zipped pdf: http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~davoudo/pubs/vrfd_null.pdf.zip >gzipped postscript: http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~davoudo/pubs/vrfd_null.ps.gz If I'm not mistaken this is the well known "verification search" with one modification: no verification in the verification search. Am I right? Another question: your results in table 5 seem convincing, but what about table 4? Are these results statistically significant? (my guess is no ..) Martin
This page took 0.02 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.