Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:34:45 09/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 1999 at 01:20:45, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 28, 1999 at 15:43:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 28, 1999 at 13:42:00, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>> >>>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... > >Ok so what about deciding the R factor by looking up how many plies >there are still below the null-move search ? i.e. trying to ensure >there is always a non-null move search in the null-move search (ahem) >This seems workable as it always catches at least the simple one-move >threats. > >Is something like R=1 doable for 4-5 ply searches ? At what depth can >one consider taking it to R=2 ? > >-- >GCP 1. I tried the R=2/R=1 trick... ie if depth > 2 use R=2, else use R=1, so that you always have a non-null on the end. That hurts performance badly. 2. R=1 is safer, but it turns a 5 ply search into 4 plies or less (if you use recursive null-move). But on any reasonable hardware you should _never_ see 5 ply searches. IE on ICC in blitz games, I generally see at least 8 and normally 9-10 or more...
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.