Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 05:46:36 06/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 2004 at 07:58:52, Tord Romstad wrote: >On June 03, 2004 at 07:37:30, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On June 03, 2004 at 03:21:07, Daniel Shawul wrote: >> >>>Hi >>> >>>I used to use adaptive null move pruning. >>>But now since i added checks only in the first ply of quiescence search(horizon) >>>I think it is time to use R=3 everywhere. Is it safe? >>>Do i need to do other safe guard searches like verified null move >>>pruning? >>> >>>best >>>daniel >> >>I use R=3 everywhere (checks in q-search). > >Even in the endgame? I never had any success with R>2 in the endgame. Sorry, R=2 if there are only a few pieces left. >>It is not a pure win though: you see more in some areas and less in others. > >You can try to compensate by using a dynamic reduction factor. I use R=3 >most of the time, but depending on the position it also happens that I >use R=1, 2 or 4. The main factors are the amount of material left on the >board, the king safety for the side to move, and the passed pawn eval for >the side not to move. The idea is to avoid using a too big reduction factor >in positions where the risk of horizon effect problems is big. > >My experience is that a dynamic reduction factor works better than all the >more common alternatives (pure R=2, pure R=3, verified null move pruning, >and adaptive null move). Yes, you have stated your heretical ideas here before :) I think that R=3 is more stressful on the evaluation function than adaptive. It requires a better kingsafety & passer eval. anthony
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.