Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 00:49:28 11/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2002 at 03:43:14, scott farrell wrote: >On November 27, 2002 at 14:02:29, Stan Arts wrote: > >>Hello! >> >>I am wondering how strong you can go by not using pruning methods like null-move >>or futilitypruning etc. but basicly just use a minimax-type algorithm with >>some form of alpha-beta pruning. I mean to keep the "full-width" (depth before >>going into Q-search) depth 100% sound. >> >>How well would the strong programs of today do when they dis-able (in theory, >>might not be possible ofcourse) all types of pruning except alpha-beta? (keeping >>their Q-search and move-ordening as it is now) >> >>Would be interesting to find out, I mean to see the effect of very good move- >>ordening of advanced programs etc. Also it would probably show which programs >>depend most heavelly on their Q-search that probably makes a lot of difference >>in strength in this case too? >> >>PS. Are there any strong engines/programs that do NOT use null-move, or a whole >>lot of futility-pruning/razoring etc? And if so, which ones? >> >>Thanks! >> >>Stan > >Read my recent post titled "pruning vs extensions vs qsearch - are these all >effectively the same?" > >My argument is that you dont need to forward prune at all, if you extend enough, >it is virtually the same thing. > >Are you aware that deep blue did NOT forward prune OR null move ??? just lots >and lots of brute force and extensions. I don't think it is the same entirely. One difference is that with pruning you can "undo" the extension you did earlier. Ie. in a long variant you may extend at ply 2, but at ply 3 there are some moves with should be pruned rather than extended. I see no way of doing this only with (positive) extensions. -S.
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.