Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Null-Move: Difference between R = 2 and R = 3 in action

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 13:09:57 07/15/02

Go up one level in this thread

On July 15, 2002 at 16:00:52, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On July 15, 2002 at 13:30:54, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>On July 15, 2002 at 13:11:09, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>Why does double null move prove that null move is a correct search method????
>>>Doing two null moves in a row means going back to standard search (a search not
>>>involving an illegal move like null move is).
>>>I fail to see how it legitimates null move.
>>I think the idea is simply to show that you can nullmove and still
>>have a correct search. (but only with double nullmove, not single)
>Here is how to use double null move:
>Use your regular null move every place you are using it now (unless you use it
>with in check or when zugzwang).

Have a foolproof method for identiefying zugzwang?

>When something occurs where you would normally abandon null move, switch to
>double null move instead.
>In other words, we will never give it up completely, but (instead) switch to
>double null move when things get dicey.
>For sure, it is much better than abandoning it altogether, unless you know for
>sure it should not be used at all in some particular situation.
>Pieces get thin (pass below some threshold in points) --> instead of turning
>null move off, switch to double null move.

I do something similar, except that I use a verification search instead
of double-nullmove, and I never use it in pawn endings.


This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.