Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:03:30 09/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 1998 at 17:00:28, John Coffey wrote: >Again: > >>but "everywhere" doesn't mean when you are down in material or the >>material is even? it only means when material has been *gained*? > >It would not make sense to me to skip a move for one side if that >one side has lost material. But everytime I ask the question, >"do we do a null move check *******************only*************** (note >the emphasis :-) when a side is ahead in material?", I am told repeatedly >that the null move check is done **************everywhere************. Which >would seem to contradict my question. > >If so, why? If one side drops a rook, are we going to let the other side >make two moves in a row to do a null move check? > >John Coffey yes. Just because one person is ahead or behind a rook, does *not* mean that a null-move search is guaranteed to fail low or high. There are other things, including the null-move search finding a mate, or finding you get mated, or whatever... You simply have to try them. If you don't believe the results we quote, then grab the crafty source, look at the top of search.c and start trying to restrict where null-moves are tried, and see if it speeds up or slows down. That's the easiest way to confirm/disprove a hypothesis...
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.