Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: When to do a null move search - an experiment

Author: Vasik Rajlich

Date: 03:10:04 04/27/04

Go up one level in this thread

On April 27, 2004 at 01:38:49, Uri Blass wrote:

>On April 27, 2004 at 00:44:34, rasjid chan wrote:
>>On April 26, 2004 at 20:07:00, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>On April 26, 2004 at 13:41:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>On April 26, 2004 at 12:14:33, José Carlos wrote:
>>>>>On April 26, 2004 at 11:57:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>>On April 26, 2004 at 11:48:35, José Carlos wrote:
>>>>>>>On April 26, 2004 at 11:32:26, Tord Romstad wrote:
>>>>>>>>On April 26, 2004 at 10:39:42, José Carlos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  An interesting experiment, of course. But I think your conditions are rather
>>>>>>>>>different from 'most' programs. I mean:
>>>>>>>>>  - You allow any number of null moves in a row (most programs don't do even
>>>>>>>>This has no importance, I think.  My experience is that I almost always get the
>>>>>>>>same score and PV when I enable/disable several null moves in a row, and that
>>>>>>>>the difference in number of moves searched is *very* tiny.
>>>>>>>  You're probably right, as you've tested and I speak from intuition, but at
>>>>>>>first sight, it seems that the fact that you allow several null moves in a row
>>>>>>>will increase your percentage of null-moves-tries/total-nodes-searched, and thus
>>>>>>>that avoiding unnecessary null moves will be a good idea.
>>>>>>In *all* experiments i did with nullmove and a program not using *any* forward
>>>>>>pruning other than nullmove, the best thing was to *always* nullmove.
>>>>>  Yes, that's what other programmers also said (including me) in the thread we
>>>>>had last week. That's pretty intuitive. With not any other forward pruning (or
>>>>>very little) but null move, the cost of not trying a null move that would have
>>>>>produced a cutoff it terrible compared to the benefit of saving an useless null
>>>>>move try. So avoid null move, in this case, must be only in a very few cases
>>>>>where you're 99.99% certain you'll fail low... if any.
>>>>99.99% means 1 in 10k nodes.
>>>You can be 99.99% sure about fail low more often than 1 in 10k nodes.
>>>>So doing nullmove always is cheaper, because in a lot of cases
>>>>transpositiontable is doing its good job and in other cases you search more than
>>>>10k nodes which you avoid searching now.
>>>>>  Gothmog is very different from that 'paradigm' (he does a lot of forward
>>>>>prunning and applies many ideas he has commented here), hence it works pretty
>>>>>well for him.
>>>>I get impression evaluation function plays a major role in when something is
>>>>useful or when it isn't.
>>>>Checks in qsearch is also a typical example of this.
>>>>>>Double nullmove i invented to proof nullmove gives the same results like a
>>>>>>normal fullwidth search for depth n which i may pick, and i use it as it finds
>>>>>>zugzwangs and i am sure that is very helpful, because the weakest chain counts.
>>>>>>So double nullmove always completely outgunned doing a single nullmove then
>>>>>>disallowing a nullmove and then allowing the next one.
>>>>>  I tried double null move some time ago, and it didn't work for me. Probably I
>>>>>did something wrong, but I recall an old post (see the archives) from C. Theron
>>>>>where he gave some points why double null move should not work. I, myself,
>>>>>didn't invest too much time though as I had much weaker points to fix in my
>>>>>program before.
>>>>Christophe didn't post it doesn't work AFAIK.
>>>>Further i must remind you that majority of commercial programmers posting here
>>>>is not busy letting you know what works for them or doesn't work for them.
>>>>To quote Johan: "don't inform the amateurs".
>>>What reason do you have to tell other what works for you and what does not work
>>>for you?
>>>You do not plan to inform the amateurs about better code for tablebases than the
>>>nalimov tablebases so I do not see you as a person who try to help the amateurs.
>>>>I remember that Christophe also posted that evaluation function is not so
>>>>His latest postings here made more sense however than the crap posted before
>>>I understand that you claim that basically Christophe's claim that most of the
>>>improvement in tiger came from better search and not from better evaluation was
>>Firstly there is not that BIG a stake for disinformation and posting
>>here is also just normal human behaviour that does not require
>>asking "....why do I post ? ". Then also ask why do I talk.
>>I think Christophe was quite clear about the reasons why chess programming
>>is NOT about evaluation(not dumb evaluation). After pawn structures, passed
>>pawns etc, it is very difficult to try to improve on it. The curve for
>>evaluation is logarithmic for elo-increase/code-increase + huge overhead,
>>the very reverse of exponential.Search almost have no trend patterns and
>>search improvements usually have no overhead, you just need to be smarter
>>then the rest. Assume your opponent searches on average 3 plys ahead.
>>How do you do a good evaluation that can see 3 plys ahead? Evaluation is horizon
>I did not claim that christophe claimed wrong things.
>It is Vincent who claimed it.
>I prefer not to talk about the top programs.
>I can only say that it is clear for me that I can get much by search
>Certainly searching 3 plies forward or doing something equivalent can help
>significantly but the problem is how to do it.
>If you are optimistic about doing it with no price by intelligent extensions and
>and better order of moves then it is clear that going for search is the right
>If you are not optimistic even about getting something equivalent to 1 ply
>forward then evaluation is the right direction.

I don't think you need objective answers to these questions.

You just need a game plan.

A plain, reasonably tuned eval combined with a state of the art selective search
seems like a perfectly reasonable game plan to me.

Ditto for plain search combined with a state-of-the art evaluation.


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.