Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 04:14:13 11/22/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 22, 2002 at 07:13:04, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>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 expect 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.

This page took 0.01 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.