Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 09:31:23 03/01/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2006 at 05:35:42, Vasik Rajlich wrote:
>On February 28, 2006 at 19:50:09, Tord Romstad wrote:
>
>>On February 28, 2006 at 18:05:32, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>>
>>>This one:
>>>
>>>>>> if (nodecount == 15 && depth == 2) {
>>>>>> depth--;
>>>>>> }
>>>Is exactly what Tord mentions (a very simple raw version) applied close to the
>>>tips.
>>
>>In a certain sense, it is exactly the opposite of what I do. I only
>>use reductions *far* from the leaves; more specifically when deph > 2.
>>Before I started using null move threat detection to improve the tactical
>>accuracy, I had to use depth > 3 in order to avoid too many horizon
>>effect problems.
Tord, that is what I said in the line that I wrote above. It is your concept,
but "applied to the tips". The concept is not the opposite, it is just applied
(in the example) at a different level of the tree. As you can imagine, I tried
several levels.
>>Tord
>
>That's one difference. The really big difference was the "if (nodecount == 15)
>break;". That's Shannon B-type search!
Yes, but that differece does not exists when I used depth--. Look at the
conditinal compilation #if. I did not use all the statements at the same time.
As I said, and Bob got my message, I tried several options. I just copied now
what was left in my current code. I tried pruning, reducing, different depths
etc. Unfortunately, I did not have an obvious success and I did not pursue it
further. I believe I should try again in more controlled conditions. I certainly
congratulate the people that made this to work. Most of the time, success is in
the details.
Miguel
>Vas
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.