Author: David Blackman
Date: 03:02:59 08/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 1999 at 21:55:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >If you want to play around, here's another idea I have on my 'to-do' list: > >at present I 'break' the search into two 'chunks'. the part near the root >uses R=3, the rest uses R=2. Something tells me this might be made much more >dynamic than that... ie R=4, then 3, and finally 2. But rather than some >static divisor as I have now, make this dynamic so as you go deeper, you use >bigger R values near the root, etc... > >Seems reasonable. Whether it will work or not, we won't know until we try >it... I tried this when i first heard vague rumours about null-move, before i heard about the R=x thing. I think the null search was at half the depth of the main search (instead of depth-R-1 which is the normal way). Hard to say if it helped since the rest of the program was quite weak and i didn't get much depth anyway in those days. Another thing i tried was to always do the null-move to a fixed depth, like maybe 3 ply. This sometimes allowed really impressive search depths, but of course it can get into serious trouble by missing tactics that start with an apparently non-threatening move. Overall it was a loser. But i am thinking of trying this again in combination with some other ideas to limit the damage ...
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.