Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:18:10 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 18:06:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 17:44:32, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 09, 2002 at 17:37:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>>I agree that you can define null move pruning as extensions of the moves that >>>>are not pruned but this is not what they did. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>How can you make that statement? They extended the moves they thought >>>important to extend. Null-move trims the depth on the moves it considers >>>to be bad. >>> >>>They are the _same_... The effect is exactly the same... >> >>The moves that they extended were not the moves that null move search suggest >>that they may be good so the effect is not the same. >> >>Uri > >So? You suggest that null-move is correct. I don't believe that at all. >Neither did Hsu. Null-move makes mistakes. We just accept them because we >like the overall effect. It is _certainly_ possible to extend the right moves >and have fewer errors than null move which cuts off moves that appear to be >bad when they are not, or allows them to be searched when they should not be. Null move without zunzwang verification does mistakes but their search did more mistakes. I agree that it is possible to do something better but they did not do it. They did not decide to extend moves if the move has a threat. They had different extensions rules. Uri
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.