Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Alessandro Damiani

Date: 14:51:40 11/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


>
>One final remark: You use standard R = 3 in DIEP. So the search tree constructed
>by your program will definitely be smaller than that of verified R = 3. Many
>people find standard R = 3 as too risky; but if you are happy with its overall
>tactical strength, then I don't recommend you to shift to another method. But
>for those who'd like to get greater tactical strength than standard R = 2, and a
>smaller search tree than R = 2, I recommend to try verified null-move pruning.
>
>Best,
>
>Omid.
>

Vincent uses R = 3 and complex quiescence search (Vincent, correct me if I am
wrong). Maybe your Verified Null-Move gives about the same results like R = 3
with a complex quiescence search.

_If_ this is true then your approach is simpler and therefore better. Just my
two thoughts before going to bed. Good nights.......

Alessandro



This page took 0.4 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.