Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 18:42:29 07/19/02

Go up one level in this thread


On July 19, 2002 at 15:25:48, Christophe Theron wrote:

>On July 18, 2002 at 12:14:10, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On July 18, 2002 at 05:58:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On July 17, 2002 at 13:18:40, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 16, 2002 at 11:01:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On July 15, 2002 at 13:11:09, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On July 15, 2002 at 08:37:34, Omid David wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't think using double null-move is a good idea in practice, since in
>>>>>>>midgame the chance of zugzwang is negligible and thus it's superfluous (I doubt
>>>>>>>if even DIEP uses it). However the contribution of double null-move is that it
>>>>>>>gives legitimacy to the null-move pruning idea, proving that it _is_ a correct
>>>>>>>search method (anyway, no one doubts null-move nowadays).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Double nullmove legitimates (duh can't you use easier to spell words)
>>>>>itself, for the obvious reason that it is provable now that a search
>>>>>depth of n ply, where i may pick n, is going to solve any problem you
>>>>>give it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK, I see now.
>>>>
>>>>However, it is not true.
>>>>
>>>>Due to a nasty interaction with the hash table algorithms, just allowing 2 null
>>>>moves in a row will NOT solve any problem.
>>>
>>>What you refer to is a practical impossibility (assuming you have
>>>a efficient search) :
>>>
>>>  your assumption is that from a root position r
>>>  with transition of some moves to position p, side stm to move and
>>>  depthleft=d:
>>>
>>>  r ==> p(stm,d)
>>>
>>>  that you visit this position with properties that
>>>  before this move you have made 1 nullmove or less.
>>>
>>>  so ==> r , nullmove , p
>>>
>>>  Now a major problem for such an event to occur is that
>>>  after 1 nullmove, sides change the side to move.
>>
>>Why is this a problem?  IE in my case, position P reached thru a path
>>with a null-move and position P reached thru a path without null-move
>>are _unique_ positions...
>
>
>
>If so, your programs loses a lot of opportunities to prune because it detects
>less transpositions. But maybe it avoids some problems and is benefical in the
>end, I do not know.
>
>And now what about a position reached thru 2 null moves?

I don't do double null-move so I don't deal with it, at least in back-to-back
nulls that would undo the hash update of course...



>
>The problem arises when in a previous iteration you have seen a position from
>which you have tried a null move. The resulting search depth was so small that
>trying a second null move (double null move) after it was not possible (lack of
>depth).
>
>Unfortunately this was a zugzwang position, but as you did not have enough depth
>for double null move to detect it, so you store a very wrong score for the
>position in the HT.
>
>This problem is supposed to be solved later (with bigger depth) with the help of
>double null move. But look at what happens:
>
>Now you have in the HT a position with a searched depth of D, but actually it
>has been searched with a null move to D-R.
>
>At the next iteration, provided that now the position is encountered with a
>depth big enough to allow for two null moves in a row, the remaining depth after
>the second null move is going to be smaller than the depth stored in the HT for
>this position (remember that position+null+null=same position, so we are going
>to find this position in the HT).
>
>So the score stored in the HT is going to be brought again, and the position
>stored again in the same HT slot, with the same wrong score, but now with an
>ever bigger depth.
>
>This problem repeats at every iteration. In the end double null move FAILS to
>detect that zugzwang.


I don't disagree.  Note that I am not using double null and don't make any
claims about it at all since I don't use it.

>
>Some additional logic must be added to the search algorithm to successfully
>detect zugzwangs.
>
>
>
>    Christophe



This page took 0.09 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.