Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 14:56:57 11/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 17:51:40, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >> >>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....... > As I mentioned before, you might get the same tactical strength via a complicated quiescence; however, by using verified null-move pruning with a simpler quiescence you will get a smaller search tree. >Alessandro
This page took 0.07 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.