Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 17:05:17 11/22/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 22, 2002 at 19:57:40, Dave Gomboc wrote:

>On November 22, 2002 at 17:43:13, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>On November 22, 2002 at 17:29:35, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>>On November 22, 2002 at 07:26:02, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>>I expect it to do better at longer times too of course, for the reason
>>>>pointed out in this thread than it becomes more comparable to R=3. R=3 is
>>>>superior in Deep Sjeng compared to verified R=3, so as verified gets
>>>>closer to R=3, it will do better, but I don't expect it to do
>>>>"better than R=3".
>>>>I have different testing priorities right now because in any case it
>>>>looks vastly inferior to what I am doing now (not R=3 and not R=2/3).
>>>What are you doing now?
>>Ultra-Secret-Commercial-Hyper-Mega-Pruning-Technique XBHY-356
>So you're not going to write it up and publish it?

No. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it - it's not really fair
to Omir as he does publish his stuff.

But I am contemplating publishing another method that will yield both
smaller tree sizes and more solutions for a fixed depth.

I call it 'disable lazy evaluation'.

From what I've read here, the ICCA would accept it right away.


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.