Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:12:37 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 08:54:10, Uri Blass wrote: >> >It is not about wasting one ply but about clearly more than it and >it is clear that not using null move is counter productive when the difference >becomes bigger and not smaller at longer time control so the fact that they had >better hardware only supports using null move. > >I suggest that you try Deep Fritz without null move and you can see that at long >time control it clearly suffers. > >Here is a simple test >Deep Fritz(pIII800 64 mbytes) needed 16 hours and 29 minutes with null move >pruning to find g5 > >Please test it without null move pruning. >I have not time to do it but I bet that it cannot see g5 even if you give it >200 hours. > >I will be surprised if the price at long time control is not more than 3 plies. > >Abir Har aven - Uri Blass >2kr4/pppq1pp1/2nb1n2/3p4/5Pb1/2PPP2r/PP1BB1NP/R2QKN1R b KQ - 0 1 > > That is a flawed experiment. Here is why: Fritz uses null-move to reduce its branching factor. If you eliminate this, it is very inefficient. Because it has been _designed_ around the null-move search for years, and it has been explicitly tuned for this kind of search. DB didn't use null-move search. But they _still_ found a way to take the branching factor below 4.0, which means they did something Fritz doesn't. Knowing that, how can you compare the two? Answer: you can't... not without a lot more information that we simply don't have..
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.