Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:02:34 09/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2004 at 18:23:20, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 30, 2004 at 18:07:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 30, 2004 at 15:50:43, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>On September 30, 2004 at 09:38:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 30, 2004 at 00:52:04, Will Singleton 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>If the previous move was a piece moving near the enemy king, I don't null move. >>>>>Also, don't null near the leafs. >>>> >>>> >>>>That is a bad idea. That is where most of the _gain_ from null-move happens. I >>>>do it everywhere without this WAC141 problem stuff bothering anything. >>> >>>Do you mean for both near the leafs and enemy king or only one or the other? >> >> >>Near the leaves... >> >>Actually near the frontier as frontier nodes are those along the outer bound of >>the basic search. Leaves (in my program) never have null moves anywhere since >>they are in the q-search... > >Okay now I'm really confused. > >Frontier = depth = 0 >Pre-frontier = depth = 1 >Pre-Pre-frontier = depth = 2 >Leaf = terminal node after quiescence search (no more caps, etc.) possible Yes... > >Is that how you're classifying it? So no null move at depth = 1 is bad. yes again... > >Currently my program excludes null move if depth <= 1 (i.e. frontier >or pre-frontier in the above terminology). I have no idea if the above >terminology is generally accepted or not and am curious what others >use. > >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.