Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Null move generalization

Author: Peter McKenzie

Date: 14:45:03 04/17/02

Go up one level in this thread


On April 17, 2002 at 16:53:30, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On April 17, 2002 at 16:40:01, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>I don't see how it can completely remove the tactic from ever being seen unless
>>the implementation of null move is broken.
>
>If it has a zugzwang, you will _never_ see it if you don't check for it
>(verification search, double nullmove), or use another trick like force
>nullmoves away from the root (that is what Crafty does).
>
>You can always play the 'nullmove' no matter what depth, so you'll
>never realize the nullmove is no good.
>
>i.e. you make an illegal move that is not possible in the real game, and
>increasing search depth won't change this.

Yes, you are correct.  Some programs can never solve the following:

[D]8/8/2p5/pkp3R1/7B/P7/2p3K1/8 w - -

http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~peter/eg_test/pet013.htm

>
>--
>GCP



This page took 0.01 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.