Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: new thoughts on verified null move

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 05:48:36 11/23/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 23, 2002 at 08:45:00, Uri Blass 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.
>Omid checked it but you also reduce the gain.
>I think that I will look for good rules when to do the verification search so
>the cost will be significantly smaller but the gain is going to be the same in
>at least 99% of the cases.

I'm currently working on other variations. The initial results are promising.


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.