Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 19:17:28 07/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2004 at 17:19:39, Uri Blass wrote: >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 0.02 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.