Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: new thoughts on verified null move

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 17:00:15 11/23/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 23, 2002 at 11:11:16, Christophe Theron wrote:

>On November 23, 2002 at 09:22:37, jefkaan wrote:
>>oops, wasn't finished yet..
>>>are done by using the results of the positional eval
>>>to prune the q-search,
>>and there using only material eval
>> (haven't tried it out yet, and wouldn't
>>know how to do it, but it's only an idea,
>>you know.. to explore options of
>>more effective branch factor reducements
>>and efficient programming (besides
>>lousy solutions as inline assembler
>>and bitboards..
>Yes Chess Tiger does much more pruning than known (published) techniques.
>I think other top programs do it also.
>I still fail to see why the efficiency of an algorithm depends on what your
>QSearch does.
>If your pruning algorithm is good, it will increase the strength of the program
>regardless on how good your QSearch is.
>If your QSearch is smart, then it will increase the strength even more.
>I don't like the idea that some algorithms that have almost nothing to do with
>each other would have such an influence on each other. It is indeed possible and
>it probably happens all the time, but it's hard to work with such hypothesis in
>I think it's better to first assume that the kind of QSearch you do will not
>interfere with the quality of the pruning algorithm used before the QSearch.
>If your QSearch sucks, it's not because you are doing a lot of pruning in the
>"full width" part of the search. It's because it sucks.

The paper does prove that the more your (q)search sucks, the better your pruning
algoritm seems. But that's not really news.


>    Christophe

This page took 0.22 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.