Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:51:39 08/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2001 at 04:30:20, José Carlos wrote: > After completely rewriting my chess program (Averno), I've run into the >null-move world, which I haddn't in old versions. > In old Averno I had: > > -Reasonably good move ordering (hash move; good captures; killers; ...) > -Transposition table > -2 killers > -Lazy eval > -Check and recapture extension > -Some out-of-check stuff in qsearch > > With that, I was searching 6-7 plies in blitz (in midgame) and 7-9 in >standard. [Athlon 550] > > I've read some open source programs to get a clue on how to search deeper, and >now I have: > > -Nullmove (tried R=3 and R=2, not yet R=2/3) > -Futility pruning > -Same move ordering as before > -Same hashing scheme > -Same 2 killers > -Same Lazy eval > -Check and null-threat extension > -No out-of-check stuff in qsearch > > And now, I search 7-8 plies in blitz and 8-10 in standard (and the worst thing >is that the program looks weaker than the old one!) > That looks like a poor search depth, isn't it? So what am I missing to get, as >most null-movers, 12-13 in standard? > SEE? History heuristic for move ordering? ETC? Razoring? Are you sure you have implemented null-move correctly? IE R=2 everywhere, trying null-moves _everywhere_ (except for not allowing two consecutive null- moves in a row)? Allowing multiple null-moves in a single path with the above restriction? You should be going deeper. Significantly deeper. > Sorry for _answering_ instead of _trying_ but, as I have so little free time >to work on my program, any advice would be appreciated. > As well, I'd like to know if, with the stuff I've implemented so far, I should >expect a better performance. In that case, I might have a bug somewhere. > > Thanks in advance, > > José C.
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.