Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:50:52 06/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 1998 at 13:35:02, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: > >Hi Guido, > >It seems I had misinterpreted Negascaout. Perhaps my misinterpretation even >constitutes a new variant of this family of search algorithms. My metod on each >iteration is as follows: > >At each node, I search the first move with window {alpha,beta): > >value=-Search(-beta,-alpha,depth-1) >If value>alpha then > If value>=beta then > Search=value > Exit > End If > Alpha=value >End if > > > >Then, if I did not get a beta cut-off, for each subsequent move from that node I >do a null width search, with a research if necessary,like this > >value=-Search(-alpha-1,-alpha,depth-1) >If (value>alpha) and (value<beta) then > value=Search(-value,beta,depth-1) >End if > >If value>alpha then > If value>=beta then > Search=value > Exit > End If > Alpha=value >End if > >This was my interpretation (or misinterpretation) of Reinfeld's pseudo-code. To >be more precise, I search to depth instead of depth-1 if the side to move is in >check. Compared to classical alpha beta with infinite window, it was a great >improvement. I'll have to look at Reinfeld's code again a bit more closely, but >my method seems to work so well that I would need to be really convinced before >recoding it all over again. Do you think I could improve my speed with a proper >PVS? Maybe I waste a lot of time searching the first move to full width instead >of with a null window. > >Best Wishes, > >Roberto unless I'm overlooking something, your code looks like classic PVS/NegaScout. I don't see anything different. The "in check" condition is independent of the search window, and most everyone does this anyway, along with other extensions like one-legal-response, etc...
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.