Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:42:27 04/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 18, 2002 at 01:49:46, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>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?"
>
>But the *nullmove* _is_ an illegal move. You cannot only search legal
>moves and nullmove, it's a direct contradiction.
nullmove can fail, but double nullmove can never fail.
>--
>GCP
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.