Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: new thoughts on verified null move

Author: Alessandro Damiani

Date: 02:23:51 11/24/02

Go up one level in this thread


>>>
>>>The "backbone" of verified null move pruning is R=3. So it is natural that the
>>>deeper you go, the size of the tree will be closer to standard R=3 than to
>>>standard R=2 (again see Figure 4).
>>>
>>
>>Or in other words, R=3 dominates the verification search.
>>
>
>Standard R=3 dominated verified R=3 in terms of tree size, but is far worse in
>terms of tactical strength, and thus a significantly inferior option.
>
>Omid.
>
>P.S. By saying "verification search" you refer only to the piece of code in
>charge of verification! Please refer to the algorithm as "verified null-move
>pruning".
>

Sorry, I saved too many words. I was talking about verified null-move pruning
itself. _Within_ this algorithm, R=3 dominates the verification search, as I
wrote in your context

"The 'backbone' of verified null move pruning is R=3. So it is natural that the
deeper you go, the size of the tree will be closer to standard R=3 than to
standard R=2 (again see Figure 4)."

Domination in my words is related to the tree size: verification search
increases, while R=3 decreases it. But R=3 decreases more than verification
search increases. Therefore R=3 "dominates" verification search.

In the end I was just abstracting a little bit to save words. ;)

Alessandro



This page took 0.12 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.