Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Verified Null-Move Pruning, ICGA 25(3)

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 14:36:17 11/23/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 22, 2002 at 20:05:17, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On November 22, 2002 at 19:57:40, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>On November 22, 2002 at 17:43:13, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>On November 22, 2002 at 17:29:35, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>>>On November 22, 2002 at 07:26:02, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>>>I expect it to do better at longer times too of course, for the reason
>>>>>pointed out in this thread than it becomes more comparable to R=3. R=3 is
>>>>>superior in Deep Sjeng compared to verified R=3, so as verified gets
>>>>>closer to R=3, it will do better, but I don't expect it to do
>>>>>"better than R=3".
>>>>>I have different testing priorities right now because in any case it
>>>>>looks vastly inferior to what I am doing now (not R=3 and not R=2/3).
>>>>What are you doing now?
>>>Ultra-Secret-Commercial-Hyper-Mega-Pruning-Technique XBHY-356
>>So you're not going to write it up and publish it?
>No. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it - it's not really fair
>to Omir as he does publish his stuff.
>But I am contemplating publishing another method that will yield both
>smaller tree sizes and more solutions for a fixed depth.
>I call it 'disable lazy evaluation'.
>From what I've read here, the ICCA would accept it right away.

Well GCP, we are both 20. We have enough time to find many algorithms and
improvements. Why not publish some of them? :-)

Just kidding; if you are going commercial soon, then I don't recommend you to
publish your   "Ultra-Secret-Commercial-Hyper-Mega-Pruning-Technique XBHY-356"
idea. Just the "Infra-Public-Freeware-Hypo-Mini-BruteForce-Technique AAAA-000"?


This page took 0.01 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.