Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:12:55 11/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2002 at 08:48:36, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>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.
>
>>Uri
Initial results ALWAYS look good. :)
Good luck with your researchs.
Christophe
This page took 0 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.