Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 13:19:17 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2002 at 16:05:45, Tony Werten wrote: >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. > The rate of what, was 5 per second? >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.