Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 15:27:11 09/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2004 at 18:06:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 30, 2004 at 15:49:14, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>On September 30, 2004 at 09:36:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 29, 2004 at 23:52:15, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >>> >>>>[D] 4r1k1/p1qr1p2/2pb1Bp1/1p5p/3P1n1R/1B3P2/PP3PK1/2Q4R w - - bm Qxf4; >>>> >>>>In this position I had everything turned on and got the solution >>>>in a little more than 1 1/2 minutes: >>>> >>>> 1/11 g2f1 0.01 -953 945 g2f1 f4d5 >>>> g2f1 f4d5 >>>> 2/12 g2f1 0.01 -953 1644 >>>> g2f1 f4d5 c1g5 >>>> 3/12 g2f1 0.02 -953 5064 >>>> g2f1 f4d5 c1g5 d5f6 >>>> 4/20 g2f1 0.09 -953 20655 >>>> g2f1 f4d5 b3d5 c6d5 c1c7 d6c7 f1g1 >>>> 5/22 g2f1 0.65 -953 168943 >>>> g2f1 b5b4 b3a4 f4d5 f6g5 d5e7 >>>> 6/26 g2f1 2.59 -953 620310 >>>> g2f1 b5b4 mtmt >>>> 7/32> g2f1 60.58 -552 14192153 g2f1 e8c8 c1b1 f4d5 b1e4 d6b4 f6e5 c7b6 >>>> g2f1 e8c8 c1b1 f4d5 b1e4 d6b4 >>>> 7/34 c1f4 99.42 5113 24537823 c1f4 e8e6 f4g5 d7e7 b3e6 e7e6 h1d1 d6e7 f6e7 >>>> c1f4 e8e6 f4g5 d7e7 b3e6 e7e6 h1d1 >>>> >>>> >>>>I turned off null move (R=2) and got the solution in about 11 seconds: >>>> >>>>Alpha=-1332 Beta=-531 Maxdepth=9999999 MaxTime=99999999 >>>> 1/11 g2f1 0.01 -953 908 g2f1 f4d5 >>>> g2f1 f4d5 >>>> 2/12 g2f1 0.01 -953 1565 >>>> g2f1 f4d5 c1g5 >>>> 3/14 g2f1 0.07 -953 20084 >>>> g2f1 f4d5 c1g5 d5f6 >>>> 4/22 g2f1 0.60 -953 131543 >>>> g2f1 f4d5 b3d5 c6d5 c1c7 d6c7 f1g1 >>>> 5/26>g2f1 6.80 -552 1607444 >>>> g2f1 b5b4 b3a4 f4d5 f6g5 d5e7 >>>> 5/36 c1f4 10.70 2260 2466497 c1f4 d6f4 h4h5 g6h5 h1h5 f4h6 h5h6 c7g3 g2g3 d7d6 >>>> >>>> c1f4 d6f4 h4h5 g6h5 h1h5 f4h6 h5h6 c7g3 g2g3 d7d >>>> >>>>So now my question is, would it make sense to consider an idea of >>>>disabling null move under additional circumstances if those >>>>circumstances can be identified. >>>> >>>> endgame >>>> side to move in check >>> >>>You can't do a null-move when in check. That would leave your opponent free to >>>capture your king which makes no sense... >> >>I don't do a null move in check. That's why I said side to move in check >>above. If that was unclear, I need to go to remedial school. > >I read the above as "should I consider disabling null move if ..." and one of >the clauses was "side to move in check"... Which implied to me that you are not >doing this at the present... > > >> >>> >>> >>>> inside principal variation >>>> last move a null move >>>> >>>>These are the ones I disable for -- I don't disable null move for >>>>any material-related or alpha/beta related measures but perhaps >>>>I should. Are any in common use? >>>> >>>>Stuart Okay makes sense. I disable null move when: inside principal variation if side to move is in check if in endgame depth > 1 if mate threat from hash table was set I just realized that depth > 1 is more or less disabling the null move for everything except frontier nodes and below. I don't know why doing that got my WAC to stay within 240-250 current score and my WAC 141 to go down to 5 seconds from 95 (along with the limiting recaptures extension to plies where ply<=iterative_ply+1.) That depth > 1 restriction is too heavy. Stuart
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.