Author: Edward Screven
Date: 10:37:31 01/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2001 at 13:12:55, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>applying david's suggestion to a null move implementation would >>mean reducing the search depth after a null move failed high >>instead of simply returning immediately with a fail high. > >That is what I do with in my program Gaviota (not a good example since >it is still a beginning project). Instead of returning beta I do > >depth = depth - R; > >I does not reduce the tree as much as classic null-move but still reduces >enough. The advantage is that it is not fooled as easily by zugswang-type >positions. A couple of plies more and it sees it. Some of the positions >that have been posted here that are tough for excellent null-move programs >Gaviota was ok. >Probably not as good as null-move since zugswangs are rare but I just like it. what do you do when the null-move fails high, then the reduced depth search doesn't? do you then re-search at the original non-reduced depth? i vaguely remember trying something like this as a kind of null move test verification step. i took it out, so i must not have liked it. i'm pretty sure i heard about the idea from someone else. - edward
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.