Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 04:14:36 04/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 07, 2004 at 05:11:44, José Carlos wrote: > You share your ideas, and that's great. Keep doing so please. I will, whenever I think I have something interesting to share. I'll now make an attempt to give a simple explanation of the more general idea I mentioned: Like most programmers, I don't do a null move search at all nodes, but only at nodes where I am reasonably sure of a fail high. I regard the null move search as a technique to prune moves which does not even threaten to bring the score up to alpha. At the node directly following the null move, the side to move should try to prove that the move played before the null move contained some important threat. Therefore, it makes sense to search some moves more deeply than others after the null move. Moves which were made possible by the previous move should be searched deeply, and also moves which attack squares and pieces which were also attacked by the previous move. Other moves, which have no logical connection to the move played before the null move, could be searched with reduced depth. It would clearly take a lot of thought and experimentation to make something like this work well, but I think the idea might have some potential. > Even if you make >a mistake, you: > -get feedback and avoid useless developing+testing > -give something interesting to think about Yes, but in this case my mistake was so obvious that I was just wasting everybody's time and bandwidth. > Congratulations on your success with Gothmog. Really impressive how your >"stupid" ideas are working on your program. I wish I was so "stupid" as you. Thanks, but it seems to me that Averno is around the same strength. :-) Tord
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.