Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:53:57 06/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 1998 at 18:33:36, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On June 29, 1998 at 13:28:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 29, 1998 at 12:39:13, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>>I am merely stating that it can't be said that null-move is bad just because DB >>>doesn't do it. > >>there I'd agree. They are so much faster/stronger than the rest of us, that >>whether they use null-move or not is probably inconsequential. I believe that >>null-move would make them even stronger, but Hsu has this "perfection" syndrome >>that refuses to accept any error at all unless it is unavoidable. With null- >>move, you instantly agree to accept errors, in return for more depth that might >>catch errors you didn't agree to accept. > >You have seen where this attitude gets you on a micro, I am sure, and my point >is that once you have learned to jettison this attitude, I don't think you'll >take it back if you get the horsepower again. > >>without a doubt correct, although I probably lean a little backward toward Cray >>Blitz now, since parallel processing has boosted my speed enough, I'm now trying >>to find time to investigate things that I found useful in CB, like singular >>extensions, for one example. I'd like to one day try null-move R=2 on CB, but >>it would be *very* difficult to do since all that stuff is in assembly language. >>But I'd like to know how that affects the thing since I *never* tried it, never >>even tried recursive null-move in fact.. > >I bet there would be a dramatic improvement. > >My feeling is based upon running Ferret with and without null-move during its >evolution. Null-move is always dramatically better overall on extended tactical >tests. > >>they had a lot of pressure from us. We were never slow, and almost beat them >>the first time we played them, but a cute SMP bug made us avoid a outright >>winning move that they were expecting, and we were going to play, until the >>last minute. >> >>In fact, they never "overwhelmed" us in speed, since they were doing 2-3M nodes >>per second in deep thought II, while we were only doing 1/4 of that or so at >>the time. As a result, their stick wasn't "that big", only a factor of 4 or >>so. But other things were certainly working for them in our games, like SE >>for one. > >How many times did you play them? > >bruce 4. first time we could have won. last three we were just busted. They see too much.
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.