Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 03:45:30 11/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2002 at 01:48:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >It isn't what he is claiming. He claims that R=3 + verification is close to >R=2 in nodes, and has fewer null-move failures. His data seems to support >that. >R=3 with a depth-1 verification ought to be fairly close to R=2, just based on >pure math. I'll leave it to you to figure out why... I don't really agree. I'm assuming you do the fairly intuitive math of 2+1=3 but things are not so simple :) R=3 verif. does a R=3 search, one depth reduction on fail high (which makes it equivalent to R=1 without nullmoving at that ply, but it is safe because you guaranteed your opponent has no serious threat), and R=3 cutoffs everywhere below R=2 does, well, R=2 cutoffs It's not so obvious these are close in nodes. In fact, the paper itself points of that the methods scale very differently. -- GCP
This page took 0.02 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.