Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Verified Null-Move Pruning, ICGA 25(3)

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.