Computer Chess Club Archives




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

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...


This page took 0.06 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.