Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:46:01 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 22:19:24, Martin Giepmans wrote: >On December 18, 2002 at 21:51:20, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On December 18, 2002 at 21:44:09, Martin Giepmans wrote: >> >>><snip> >>>>>I don't understand what you are trying to say. >>>>>Without a research (if the verification search with reduced depth doesn't >>>>>give a cutoff) verification search would be pointless. >>>> >>>>The verification search goes deeper than the null-move search, so it might find >>>>tactical errors overlooked by the null-move search, and correct them (without >>>>any need for a re-search). >>>> >>> >>>No need for a research ?????????? >>>It's late, I guess we are talking about two different things? >> >>No we aren't :-) >> >>When we have a fail-high report, we simply reduce the depth, and continue a >>regular search, as if nothing has happened. Because this regular search (which >>can be called verification search) goes deeper, it might find out threats beyond >>null-move search's horizon. In that case, you would get the correct result even >>if you don't do a re-search! >> >Yes, we _were_ talking about 2 different things :) >My thing is verification search, yours is what I would call "de-extension". >One difference is that de-extensions are symmetrical (you reduce depth for >both colors) while (standard) verification search is essentially asymmetrical. > >I think it's possible that at least some of the readers of your article >got confused here and implemented something in their programs that you >didn't intend. Perhaps that explains why in many cases your method didn't >seem to work. > >Martin I do not understand How can you reduce depth for only one color? There is only one varaible with the name depth in my program. Uri
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.