Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:19:39 07/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2004 at 14:45:24, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On July 03, 2004 at 07:12:24, David B Weller wrote: > >>Just a thought - >> >>When the reduced depth verification search fails high, what depth do you store >>in hash? I think it should be original depth, right? Not the reduced depth. >> >>David > >I store the original depth in the hashtable after failed failhigh in >null move verification. > >On the other hand, after extensions like pawn to 6th/7th, recapture, >and the like, I store the increased depth in the hashtable. > >Hope this isn't too much against the grain. Still have a ton of bugs. > >Solve 152 out of 300 of the Win-at-Chess in 1 second though with >everything enabled. If I disable null move verification I get 167 >out of 300 at 1 second. > >Wonder if null move has this tactical-reducing capability in other >programs? -- So that I know if it is working through indirect evidence >(besides direct evidence of depth, nodes, etc.) > >Anyone care to comment about that last question? I think that if you solve 152 or even 167 out of 300 of the win in chess in 1 second then you have clearly bigger problem than null move pruning. Tscp does not support FEN but I guess that even tscp that has no null and no hash can get more than 167 out of 300 in one second. Did you test that pawn to 6/7 extensions help you? I do not extend pawn to the 6th. I think that you did the mistake of implementing a lot of stuff without testing. You should implement one thing at a time and test if it is productive. I suggest that you delete null move and hash and extensions and test again and only implement things that help you to score better in WAC. 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.