Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 23:33:17 11/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2002 at 22:54:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 22, 2002 at 06:45:30, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>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 > >This is not quite true. R=3 does R=3, but R=1 research, but below that >research, R=3 is done _exclusively_. That does make a big difference... That's what I said... -- GCP
This page took 0.08 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.