Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 05:45:04 11/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2002 at 08:36:48, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 23, 2002 at 08:11:37, scott farrell wrote: > >>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. > >Read section 5 of Omid's paper... > Yes, I said the tactical strength of decreasing the depth by 2, was less than that of decreasing by 1. However, the difference might not be that substancial in other programs who have more sophisticated extensions or quiescence. So, I believe this method, amongst other methods mentioned in the "Conclusion" section, are worth a second consideration. >-- >GCP
This page took 0.01 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.