Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:51:18 05/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2004 at 11:37:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 03, 2004 at 11:13:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 03, 2004 at 10:53:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 03, 2004 at 10:19:46, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>I don't see any at 8. I don't personally have access to a 16-way box yet so I >>>>>can't say anything there. But there is nothing that really makes null-move hurt >>>>>parallel search... >>>> >>>>Couldn't it be, that nullmove hurts scalability in much the same way alpha-beta >>>>"hurts" parallel search compared to minimax? >>> >>>I don't see how. It might make _some_ positions more unstable, and unstable >>>positions hurt parallel search. But it also makes other positions more stable. >> >>What a nonsense. "i don't see how." >> >>it is very clearly proven. For everyone doing parallel research it is *trivial* >>that more unstable trees are harder to split. Note that in old issues of ICGA it >>is already mentionned for example by Jonathan Schaeffer. > >So? Do you claim that null-move makes the search more "unstable"? I understand nothing about parallel search so I will say nothing about it but I know that null move is one of the factors that can cause wrong fail high when after research you get fail low. If this is not unstability of the search then I do not know what do you mean by unstability. 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.