Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: new thoughts on verified null move

Author: Frank Schneider

Date: 07:52:14 11/23/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 23, 2002 at 08:11:37, scott farrell wrote:

>Just after other people's thoughts.
>I think Omid's work overlooked the adapative null move searching many of us do,
>ie. transitioning from r=3 to r=2.
>I think adaptive null move tries to GUESS where to use r=2 to reduce the errors
>that R=3 makes. I guess it depends on how often this GUESS is correct, the cost
>of the verification search, and how long it takes the adaptive searching to
>catch the error at the next ply.
>Has anyone looked at setting the verification search to reduced depth of 2
>(rather than 1)? obviously to reduce the cost of the verification search.
>Robert : How did your crafty implmentation go?
>I know that measuring nodes for a fixed search depth sounds like good science,


in my first tests the number of nodes increased and the number of solutions
was worse :-/

What kind of "refinements" for nullmove did your test-program use?


>but I think you really need to look at where one method makes a mistake, and how
>quickly it can find the mistake at the next ply. Obviously my point is if it
>finds a given move with less nodes, thats good, if it takes an extra ply of
>search, sometimes that's acceptable if we can catch it quick enough. We've all
>seen how quickly at the next ply a fail low is often fast, well that is my major
>"verification search" for ALL search problems - horizon, null move, etc etc. I
>think it might be better to include some nodes from the next iteration, where
>the next ply fails low really really quickly, and finds the mistake anyway,
>maybe consider the nodes as part of the previous ply.

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.