Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Some questions about Verified Null-Move Pruning

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 13:05:45 11/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 21, 2002 at 13:52:33, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>On November 21, 2002 at 13:05:28, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On November 21, 2002 at 09:16:09, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>
>>>On November 21, 2002 at 08:34:36, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>1)I do not find in the pseudo code in figure 3 undo null move.
>>>>
>>>>I assume that it should be before if value>=beta and after value=-search(...)
>>>>Am I right?
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is why it is called *pseudo*-code :-)
>>>You have to fill in the obvious parts by yourself...
>>>
>>>
>>>>2)What is the value of the research for tactical strength?
>>>>Should it help significantly relative to searching to reduced depth when
>>>>value>=beta without research (even when we get value that is less than beta).
>>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't understand the question. Dp you mean doing a shallow search even when
>>>we don't have a fail-high report?!
>>
>>I meant to ask what is the tactical value of the research(You suggested people
>>to start with doing it without the research first and only after it works to do
>>it with the research)
>>
>
>The re-search is needed only in zugzwang positions. Such zugzwang positions
>occur very rarely in midgames; so you can forgo the zugzwang detection re-search
>and still benefit all the improved tactical performance.

I was quite surprised to see them from the starting position at a rate of 5 per
second. Not impressive, XiniX searches 400 Kn/s there, but still surprising.

Tony

>
>
>>Uri



This page took 0.01 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.