Author: José Carlos
Date: 14:13:41 04/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2002 at 15:27:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 25, 2002 at 13:49:42, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On April 25, 2002 at 13:26:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 25, 2002 at 12:39:36, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >>> >>>>On April 25, 2002 at 02:54:03, Andreas Herrmann wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>I want to implement double nullmove in my chess engine again. Now i'm searching >>>>>for Zugzwang postions, which should be solved by double nullmove instead of >>>>>normal nullmove. >>>>>Another question: How much time costs the double null move in the average. >>>>>I have tested it in some positions, and my engine needs about 30 to 40 percent >>>>>more time for the same search depth. Is that normal or is that to much. >>>> >>>>That seems like far too much. Are you reducing the search depth again for the >>>>second nullmove and only doing it when the first nullmove causes a cutoff? You >>>>might also not want to do it too near the leafs, i.e. if the first nullmove goes >>>>directly into your quiescence search. >>> >>> >>>One simple test... determine how often, in normal positions, the _second_ null- >>>move search fails high. Whenever it does, the the first null-move search fails >>>low and is useless. that is probably where the cost is being exposed... >>> >>>In zug positions, the second fail high will cause the first to fail low, which >>>prevents zug problems. But if it also causes a large number of normal positions >>>to fail this test as well, then it is losing part of the advantage of null-move >>>in general... >> >>I had a notion about double null move -- >> >>Implement double null move in the place where normally you will just turn null >>move off [except for check]. Use your regular null move algorithm as always, >>but when conditions indicate null move is not a good idea, switch to double null >>move. > > >If it was easy to identify positions where a null-move might cause problems, >the problem would already be solved. > >:) But I think Dann's idea is very logical, since a lot of us simply disable null move in some positions. Using double null move _only_ there must be better than disabling it. Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of zugzwang in unepected situations. José C.
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.