Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 08:15:15 11/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2002 at 11:12:55, Christophe Theron wrote: >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. :) > Not always; I had some ideas that I dumped after less than a week of experiments... >Good luck with your researchs. > Thank you! > > > Christophe
This page took 0.08 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.