Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Double Nullmove

Author: Andrew Dados

Date: 09:04:36 03/30/01

Go up one level in this thread

On March 30, 2001 at 11:17:22, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On March 30, 2001 at 09:04:25, David Rasmussen wrote:
>>Anyone who have tried double nullmove (I know you have, Vincent :), what are the
>>_drawbacks_ of double nullmove?
>There are two sides to this:
>1.  you use the double null-move to detect zugzwang positions.  Because if
>a position fails high after the second null-move, it would have failed high
>after the first as well and that is a strong indication of a zugzwang position.
>And since the second null search fails high and returns beta, the first null
>search will fail low and it won't be used.
>So you get zug detection and you can be more relaxed in where you try
>null moves.  Note that many null-move failures are _not_ zugzwang positions.
>They are simply positions that look won to a less-than-normal search depth.
>But in reality, a normal search would reveal they are dead lost.  Double nulls
>don't handle this at all, so you need some other protection.  A classic is to
>let your opponent get a pawn stuck at f6.  If he gets a queen to h6, the mate
>threat might be unstoppable on g7.  But after playing Qh6, <null> you might
>hit your q-search and never notice that Qg7 is mate.
>2.  The double null move search is not free.  It is a tree search that will
>be used to signal (on a few occasions) that a previous ply null-search should
>not be trusted due to zugzwang.  The downside is this is pretty expensive.

How expensive can double nullmove be?

For bf of 3 you get about 1/3^3=1/27 more nodes.
For endgames and bf of 2 you'll see estimated 1/8 more nodes.

Actually my program uses double null in endgames and it seems 10% more nodes is
maximal overhead I saw (compared to 'normal nullmove').

However in those low material situations when other programs disable nullmove
totally (except for pawn endings) double nullmove is an obvious winner.


>On one hand, you catch zugzwang positions.  On the other hand, you make the
>tree larger.  Which is better?  It is just another compromise decision where
>you win some and lose some because of it.

This page took 0.11 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.