Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 18:27:18 04/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2002 at 20:20:04, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On April 17, 2002 at 20:05:52, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>
>>The title of the thread is Null move *generaliztion*. Are there positions that
>>Null move *cannot* solve? Yes. Now the question is, "Under what conditions?"
>>There is no question that a null moving program with modification can
>>theoretically still solve any position. That's not the issue.
>
>I still don't understand how null move (properly implemented) can *ever* cause a
>search to simply fail. After all, the *only* side effect is that it reduces
>search depth by some number of plies (as defined by R).
>
>If we are searching illegal moves, or if we recursively apply null move without
>limit {and surely this is a very bad bug} then all sorts of strange things can
>happen.
>
>But if:
>1. We only search legal moves
>2. We do not reduce depth infinitely but only finitely
>Then my question is:
>"How can the search fail forever?"
Lets say are searching to depth 15. There is a zugzwang at depth 5. You null
move there. The nullmove search carries the line out to depth 13 (for R=2) where
you evaluate and fail high. This will miss the zugzwang.
You're confusing nullmove with futility pruning.
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.