Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 04:13:04 11/22/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 22, 2002 at 07:00:19, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 22, 2002 at 06:52:57, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>Many things are not that obvious. Please read the "Conclusions" section for >>other algorithms I tried but were inferior to the presented algorithm. >> >>One interesting point is that at depth 8, the size of the tree constructed by >>vrfd R=2 was slightly larger than std R=2; at depth 9, vrfd constructed a >>smaller tree, and the gap widens as we search deeper (see Figure 4). So, I >>believe than on every program, starting from a certain depth, vrfd R=3 will >>construct much smaller trees in comparison to std R=2. And the benefit will >>increase as we search deeper. >> > >You didn't expect this? I did expected this :-) It is quite obvious since the *backbone* is R = 3, so the result of vrfd R = 3 will remain closer to std R = 3 in higher depths. >It's fairly logical. vrfd R=3 is the same as R=3 >below the first fail high. If you search deeper, you get bigger and bigger >parts of the tree that are done with R=3 instead of R=2, so you'll get >smaller trees at some point. > >-- >GCP

- Re: Verified Null-Move Pruning, ICGA 25(3)
**Omid David Tabibi***04:14:13 11/22/02*

This page took 0.02 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.