Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:43:43 09/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 1999 at 13:42:00, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >Hi all, > >I'm adding nullmove search to my program and testing out >the different depth reduction possibilities. > >What I wonder now is what exactly you have to consider/test >when deciding the reduction factor. Some people use 1, some >use 2, maybe some use 3 even. I have been using a combination of 3 and 2 for a year. 3 near the root, 2 near the leaves... > >What exactly do you risk to miss by using a bigger factor ? you overlook deep tactics. If you use R=3, then the search below a null move will be three plies shallower than normal. That can overlook a lot of tactical threats, and fail high, when it really should be failing low. > >Also, does the actual depth the program reaches play part in >this consideration ? (e.g. if you only get 5 ply then R=2 or >R=3 are out of the question?) > they are _very_ dangerous at that depth.. because any null-move will take you right into the q-search, which is pretty simple-minded. It works far better at deeper depths... >-- >GCP
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.