Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: TranspositionTables and NULL-move

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 02:31:25 03/10/04

Go up one level in this thread


On March 10, 2004 at 04:49:48, Renze Steenhuisen wrote:

>Hi anyone!
>
>Today I tested the effects the saving of NULL-move search results has on the
>size of the search-tree. The conclusion was unexpected!
>
>I compared saving LOWER, EXACT, and UPPER bound values only in the PVS part of
>the code, with additionally saving the LOWER bound value from the NULL-move
>cut-off.
>
>To my surprise, the additional information had a negative impact on the size of
>the search-tree! And I do not understand why or how this is possible.
>
>Can it be because my evaluation() is not really good yet?
>Is it a real error somewhere?
>
>Some comments/thoughts/experience is very much appreciated!
>
>Renze

I do not understand how saving information can change the size of the tree.
The only thing that can change the size of the tree is using information to get
decisions.

I simply do not understand what you are talking about.

I do not understand what you mean by the PVS part of the code.
I have pv array and I update it during the search when the score is between
alpha and beta but I do not understand what is the PVS part of the code.

I think that you did not give enough details about what you compared and what
was your code before the change and after the change.

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.