Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Doesn't appear to work for me (full data)

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 08:15:25 11/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 21, 2002 at 02:34:29, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On November 20, 2002 at 22:05:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On November 20, 2002 at 16:55:41, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>
>>>Nullmove in Deep Sjeng uses an algorithm of my own, but I can
>>>switch it back to other systems easily. I did so for running
>>>a few tests.
>>>
>>>I made a version which uses Heinz Adaptive Nullmove Pruning
>>>and a version which uses your verification nullmove.
>>
>>This would seem to be a bit harder than at first glance.  They say that
>>if the normal null-move search fails high, then do a D-1 regular search
>>to verify that, but while in that verification search, no further
>>verification searches are done, meaning that the normal null-move search
>>fail-high is treated just like we do it today..
>>
>>I'm going to experiment with this myself, just for fun, but it seems that you
>>need to pass some sort of flag down thru the search calls indicating that
>>you are either below a verification-search node or not so that recursive
>>verification searches are not done...
>
>Uh, considering psuedocode is given, this is a pretty braindead thing
>to implement. Yes, you need to pass a flag down, as is illustrated in
>his code.
>
>The only tricky thing is the research on zugzwang, but I guess botching
>that is not as critical if you run purely tactical tests?

hard to say.  Sometimes not moving is a good thing in the middle of a wild
tactical blast...


>
>--
>GCP



This page took 0.05 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.