Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:03:23 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2002 at 16:59:57, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >On November 21, 2002 at 16:19:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 21, 2002 at 05:14:53, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >> >>>On November 20, 2002 at 18:59:59, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>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....... >>>>> >>>>>Alessandro >>>> >>>>I do not believe that it gives the same results. >>> >>>I wrote "about the same result" which is not equal to "the same result". And I >>>added "maybe". These words tells you that I am just guessing, nothing more, >>>nothing less. >>> >>> >>>>I do not know which algorithm is better but the >>>>algorithms are different. >>>> >>> >>>Right, to know and to guess are two different things. I am in the guess-phase. >>>;) >>> >>> >>>>I believe that a third algorithm may be better than both of them. >>>> >>> >>>BTW I won't use it. My preferred algorithm is Alpha Beta Conspiracy Search >>>(ABC), and ABC already contains Verified Null-Move in a different way. >>> >>>BTW Verified Null-Move looks like an improvement of Fail High Reductions by the >>>authors of Zugzwang. >>> >>>Alessandro >> >> >>If you mean because while verifying at one node you don't verify anywhere deeper >>I >>agree. I tried the FHR and threw it out as too expensive when it first surfaced >>several >>years ago. This approach bears some testing however... >> > >I just noticed several things both approaches have in common, and IIRC the >authors of FHR mentioned for future research to replace the test > > staticScore(position) - staticThreats(opponent) >= beta > >by a search. This ends up with using dynamic null-move. IIRC they used static >mate threat detection for their staticThreats(opponent). > >To be clear, every improvement is an improvement and deserves its merit. I just >think that FHR should have been mentioned in Omid's paper, since they have some >concepts in common. I would agree there. however, I wasn't a reviewer so I didn't have an opportunity to suggest that... It's always good to be complete in a literature review for a paper, of course... > > >>Unfortunately I have not yet made any progress. Been busy writing >>justifications for the >>new ftp server to house all of Eugene's 6-piece EGTB stuff. :) > >hehe I read about Eugene pumping iron..ahem EGTB. :) > >Alessandro
This page took 0 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.