Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 23:17:02 04/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2004 at 23:22:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 29, 2004 at 19:26:32, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On April 29, 2004 at 18:05:29, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2004 at 09:28:53, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>On April 29, 2004 at 07:37:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>[ snips ] >>>> >>>>>>This is all very poor Vince, I assume you don't play much with nowadays top >>>>>>programs. From 1982 to 2001 Rebel won its games by positional understanding and >>>>>>not by search and Rebel lost its games because it was outsearched. Today Rebel >>>>>>isn't outsearched at all, it now loses its games because the current top >>>>>>programs have a better positional understanding than Rebel. >>>>>> >>>>>>You should have a good look at the current tops, the positional progress has >>>>>>been great the last years. To me it all seems to indicate (provided your search >>>>>>is okay) the only way to make progress is to improve on chess knowledge. But >>>>>>what's new, I already came to that conclusion in 1986 after some intensive talks >>>>>>with Hans Berliner. >>>> >>>>>What i mean is Ed, is that you would not have accomplished the great results >>>>>with Rebel which you managed, had you just searched with a fullwidth search + >>>>>bunch of checks in qsearch. >>>> >>>>No of course not, brute force is silly, Rebel since day 1 has been a selective >>>>program. But I am getting your point, in the days before the nullmove was >>>>discovered Genius and Rebel had the best (static) selective search, a dominant >>>>factor in their successes, is that what you meant to say? If so, it is true. >>>> >>>>If only Frans had kept his mouth shut to Chrilly (Chrilly leaking nullmove in >>>>the ICCA journal) it is very likely Fritz would been the next Richard Lang still >>>>dominating all the rating lists and WCC's for the last decade. But Frans didn't >>>>and then all bets were off. >> >> >>>Donninger published the article in 1993. Before that, there were two other >>>publications dealing with null-move: >> >>Yes, nullmove as we use it today, the other 2 articles not. >> >>Ed >Campbell's paper is _exactly_ as I do it today less the recursive nature. He >specifically mentioned different R values and said more testing with R=2 was >needed... But missing the recursive ingredient. Nullmove without recursion is a nice reduction idea, nullmove with recursion changes a brute force program into a powerful selective search program. Beal and Campbell (in that order) deserve credit for the original nullmove idea, Frans Morsch for adding the recursion element. Ed
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.