Author: José Carlos
Date: 08:56:35 08/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2001 at 09:43:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 20, 2001 at 05:22:36, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On August 20, 2001 at 04:41:41, José Carlos wrote: >> >>> Then I tried not doing it in the PV, and the strange things went out. The tree >>>got smaller and the search deeper. >>> I don't know if this is the correct way of doing it (never do a null-move in >>>the PV), cause I like to try myself before looking other's sources to see how >>>they do it. But looks reasonable. In the PV, we don't expect to fail high, so >>>why trying a null move? >> >>I don't do this, and crafty doesn't seem to be doing this either. >> >>However, your explanation makes perfect sense and I will try it. >> >>-- >>GCP > > >I used to do it but I found that trying nulls _everywhere_ actually made my >tree smaller. I do it this way now because it was more efficient when I >tested it.. Not by a lot, but better. Mmm, some time ago I asked about my not enough deep search, and some of you pointed me to the move ordering. I found that null moves in the PV caused the PV to go crazy sometimes. So I stoped doint null moves in the PV (according to my previous post reasoning) and I did the trick. My fail high on the first move/fail highs rate moved from 86-92% to 90-96%. And my search went to 'normal depths'. Now I doubt again... Is there something I have to take into account when doing null moves in the PV to avoid getting strange PV's? I know, the question is too vague but, maybe someone has an idea. So, everyone does null moves in the PV? 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.