Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 10:02:17 09/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 1999 at 09:34:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. In what way ? Is it worse than using R=1 for everything ? It got the impression it was ok, but maybe I didn't do enough testing. I'm unsure about R=2. It seems very risky when you get less than 5 ply searches. >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... Maybe I should have mentioned this: my program plays bughouse/crazyhouse, mostly 3 0 timecontrols on a Cyrix150 machine. Most searches I see go to 4 or 5 ply, even less if there are lots of checking lines, and sometimes more if there aren't much pieces in hand. I'm seeing a lot more moves per position than the 38 average you guys have to cope with :) -- 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.