Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 18:35:27 12/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2002 at 21:16:53, Bruce Moreland wrote: >The idea behind null-move forward pruning is that you ask yourself, "Even if I >give my opponent a free move, am I still winning if I let my opponent make a >short search here?" > >If the answer is yes, you are probably winning pretty big, so you can discard >this variation without doing long searches of all your legal moves. > >An example of this is if in a line you just took the opponent's queen, then the >opponent made a nonsense move, if it was your move now you could ask yourself >this question *now*. > >The answer would probably be, "I'm safe", so it would be safe to assume that the >line is bad. > >In practice, a huge number of crap variations can be thrown away like this. > >You get into trouble when you are safe for the moment, but the computer has a >longer term threat that you can't escape. The short depth null-move search >won't detect the threat. > >You also get into trouble if you are in zugzwang, when the compulsion to move is >what kills you. > >bruce Thanks. Now you give the two exceptions as if you could forget them. But exactly the LONGER plans are characteristic for good GM, so, how about a rethink of the whole trick? - Would you try to hold it up or is it just one of these tricks to let LOOK a prog quite good while it has still the known weaknesses? Therefore my idea to start a new chapter with real knowledge. To me it looks as if programmers are always looking for another trick to pretend something that is _knowingly_ not there. Isn't that simply impostering, Bruce? - Or is it in a (anyway) helpless situation, like Huebner already stated in the seventies after he visited the MIT? Is your only chance the hardware? 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.