Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:58:12 10/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 10:48:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 08, 2002 at 08:04:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On October 08, 2002 at 00:52:38, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>thanks for your explanation Eugene, >>it's very consequent to what is mentionned in the paper. >> >>Note that I'm amazed he's still defending not using nullmove. In 1997 >>i remember the many postings from bob saying how dubious nullmove >>was. Nowadays with more powerful processors reality has proven >>otherwise. > > >No it hasn't, really. There are two ways to accomplish this "thing". You can >reduce the >depth on uninteresting moves (null-move) or you can increase the depth on >interesting >moves (selective extensions). The two approaches are theoretically >_identical_... > > Could you explain that in common language? Are you sure? Identical? Rolf Tueschen
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.