Author: Tony Werten
Date: 16:03:33 12/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2002 at 16:03:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 28, 2002 at 15:39:08, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On December 28, 2002 at 14:17:17, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >> >>>[snip] >>> >>>> >>>>the problem of most 'reductions' is the hard fact that you lose a full ply >>>>near the root. >>> >>>That's why reductions are not done in every node, but under certain conditions. >>>The quality then depends on those conditions, of course. Therefore, reductions >>>are not bad per se. >> >>This was about recursive reductions as FHR. What happens is at a ply you decide >>to reduce depth, but 2 ply later, the conditions are still met and you reduce >>another ply etc. >> >>I dumped them because they cost to much tactical strenght. Ed's nonrecursive way >>seem to give me a 5% node reduction. Not bad for 2 minutes work. >> >>Tony > >The question is still if it does not cost too much tactical strength. > >It is not clear if being 5% faster in 95% of the cases and seeing tactics one >ply later in 5% of the cases is a good idea. I had no case where I saw tactics one ply later. But then again, I didn't have the 15% speedup Ed mentioned either. Personally, I think I prefer the "safe" 5%. Tony > >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.