Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: not using nullmove? [generalized null move]

Author: Christophe Theron

Date: 11:21:25 02/15/04

Go up one level in this thread

On February 14, 2004 at 20:15:58, Bruce Cleaver wrote:

>"Why not use a logarithmic scale based on the difference between the best
>possible move and the move under consideration?"
>Ron Rivest (he is the "R" in the RSA encryption algorithm) wrote a chess
>algorithm called min-max approximation, which computes the first derivative
>(really!!) of the score's change as a means to shape the search.  It has
>somewhat the same flavor as your idea.
>It is really beautiful, but has two flaws:  it is a best-first searcher
>(therefore exponential in memory), and heavily involves floating-point calcs.
>The first objection can be overcome in the standard way, but not the second.

I see a third conceptual flaw: it's not intuitive. I don't see this idea as
trying to mimic a human chess player's thinking process.

Even MTD(f) seems more intuitive than this.

If I had to try new ideas, I would not go into that direction.


This page took 0.02 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.