Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

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 0.13 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.