Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 03:34:38 11/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2002 at 22:38:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On November 21, 2002 at 22:31:55, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 21, 2002 at 22:17:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On November 21, 2002 at 22:15:39, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>it is here too Uri. >> >>No >> >>Search(alfa,beta,depthleft-1,true) is not normal null move pruning. >>By definition you do not allow null move. >> >>His idea is to use normal null move pruning in the tree after score>=beta. >> >>Uri > >From the pseudo code i conclude that it is the same like zugzwang detection >with 1 difference. Most likely he has a few bugs in the genesis program >which were most likely not there for the zugzwang detection code. > >the hashtable is a tricky thing there. > >It is of course impossible that normal R=2 is getting outperformed >by 'verification search' with just 1 depth reduction. > Standard R = 2 is outperformed by verified R = 3. >*impossible*. > "It is impossible, because I couldn't do it." --Vincent Diepeveen (for past, present, and future) >Unless you only compare search depths... ...and not search times... You accuse Robert and many others of "bad science". Have you ever conducted a research? I would like to see a published article of yours to learn what "good science" actually is...
This page took 0.03 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.