Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:20:53 12/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2002 at 19:03:33, Tony Werten wrote: >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%. I believe that more than 5% can be gained and the point is that if you get only 5% you need to check a lot of positions to verify that seeing tactics one ply later is rare enough to justify pruning. I believe that better conditions can be used for reduction and the gain should be more than 15%. I did not test it in movei because I already have different rules of pruning based on evaluation. 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.