Author: scott farrell
Date: 05:11:37 11/23/02
Just after other people's thoughts. I think Omid's work overlooked the adapative null move searching many of us do, ie. transitioning from r=3 to r=2. I think adaptive null move tries to GUESS where to use r=2 to reduce the errors that R=3 makes. I guess it depends on how often this GUESS is correct, the cost of the verification search, and how long it takes the adaptive searching to catch the error at the next ply. Has anyone looked at setting the verification search to reduced depth of 2 (rather than 1)? obviously to reduce the cost of the verification search. Robert : How did your crafty implmentation go? I know that measuring nodes for a fixed search depth sounds like good science, but I think you really need to look at where one method makes a mistake, and how quickly it can find the mistake at the next ply. Obviously my point is if it finds a given move with less nodes, thats good, if it takes an extra ply of search, sometimes that's acceptable if we can catch it quick enough. We've all seen how quickly at the next ply a fail low is often fast, well that is my major "verification search" for ALL search problems - horizon, null move, etc etc. I think it might be better to include some nodes from the next iteration, where the next ply fails low really really quickly, and finds the mistake anyway, maybe consider the nodes as part of the previous ply. Scott
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.