Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:21:09 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 17:51:40, Alessandro Damiani wrote: 'verified' nullmove, or in a different implementation but same algoritm, with just 1 ply reduction is nearly a fullwidth search. I did with a bigger reduction of course. that's also very costly compared to R=3. This was just an experiment carried out years ago when it was described in ICCA journal. Now we have same algoritm in a few lines diff algorithm. I do not see how Omid can just suffer 50% slowdown of his algorithm. Note he only publishes search depths not search times. That is wrong. You must publish search times. I suffer plies if i reduce just 1 ply. R=2 or R=3 is irrelevant to that. >> >>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 0.07 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.