Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 22:11:23 04/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2004 at 21:54:49, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 27, 2004 at 21:00:22, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 27, 2004 at 11:43:36, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>On April 27, 2004 at 08:37:34, Tony Werten wrote: >>> >>>>On April 27, 2004 at 03:33:26, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>>> >>>>>About double nullmove: I tested this in some pawnendgames to see if it could >>>>>handle zuzwang problems, but I don't see it perform any better than normal >>>>>nullmove. Can Vincent or you post a position where double null outperforms >>>>>normal null? I agree the idea is elegant, but I just don't see it work. >>>> >>>>I switch it off in pawns only endgames. Couldn't figure out why it wasn't doing >>>>as well as it sounded. >>> >>> I can't think about it now, but I recall this thread where an interesting >>>discussion about double null move came up: >>> >>>http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=241476 >>> >>> José C. >> >>Christophe wrote that down just to let you guys believe you should search >>fullwidth. >> >>Practical chances of it happening is small, not zero but very close to it. >>Additionally you can add a single 'if then else' condition in transposition >>table cutoff to avoid the theoretical scenario that christophe describes. >> >>Look the alternative to double nullmove is doing something dead slow like what >>Gerd is doing, or what i used to do in my draughtsprogram; a verification >>search, which is just a fullwidth search of n-R ply. So not the later posted in >>ICGA verification search. Verification search already was excisting in other >>publications than in the ICGA. So Omid just stole the name kind of for something >>working crappy :) > >No > >Omid did not steal the idea. > >You simply did not understand Omid's ideas. >Omid's idea is not mainly to detect zugzwangs but to detect tactics earlier. > >Null move pruning means that there are tactics that you need more plies to see >because of the horizon effect when you cannot detect the threat. > >With verified null move pruning you can see it 1 or 2 plies earlier. > >Doing checks in the qsearch cannot solve the problem because there is tactics >that is not based on checks. > >> >>Basically all those approaches eat shitload of nodes to say it *very* polite. > >Basically I see no reason that verification search to detect zugzwangs needs to >eat many nodes(Omid's idea is not verification search) and common sense tells me >that if the depth is reduced enough it does not eat many nodes. > >Uri
This page took 0.12 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.