Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:22:31 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 13:07:06, Omid David wrote: >Although the risks of using null-move pruning in the recursive way (several >times along a variation), are not so high, I didn't get great savings (reduced >search effort) from it. To the best of my knowledge in the eraly 1990s no >program used recursive null-move search. What's the standing now? The problem in the late 80's was "depth". IE Cray Blitz could search about 9 plies deep at that point, maybe 10 max. allowing multiple null-moves in a single path could hide important tactics and cause errors. R=2 had the same effect. Since nobody (except for the "monster machines" like Cray Blitz, Hitech and deep thought) could search to 9-10 plies, the rest were even more likely to experience problems. Today, null-move users are in two camps: 1. R=2, recursively applied. 2. R=2~3 (dynamically adjusted) recursively applied. I don't know of anybody today that is only allowing exactly one null-move in any distinct path, as was done in the late 80's and early 90's.
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.