Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:27:39 04/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2002 at 13:15:30, Andreas Herrmann wrote: >On April 25, 2002 at 12:39:36, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: > >>On April 25, 2002 at 02:54:03, Andreas Herrmann wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>I want to implement double nullmove in my chess engine again. Now i'm searching >>>for Zugzwang postions, which should be solved by double nullmove instead of >>>normal nullmove. >>>Another question: How much time costs the double null move in the average. >>>I have tested it in some positions, and my engine needs about 30 to 40 percent >>>more time for the same search depth. Is that normal or is that to much. >> > > >Thanks for your answer. > >>That seems like far too much. Are you reducing the search depth again for the >>second nullmove and only doing it when the first nullmove causes a cutoff? > >Yes, i think that's the normal implementation of a double nullmove, and so it's >inside my source code implemented. > > >>You might also not want to do it too near the leafs, i.e. if the first nullmove goes directly into your quiescence search. > >If the first null move goes into the quiescence search, can i do the second >(normal) null move in each case or never or only if it also doesn't end inside >the quiescence search? > >Andreas There you just bail out. null-move in the q-search doesn't make a lot of sense.
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.