Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 05:24:54 04/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2004 at 08:10:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 28, 2004 at 18:31:48, Sune Fischer wrote: > >> >>>double nullmove: >>> >>>allowed: a3 null null d5 ... >>>allowed: a3 null null d5 null null d4 .... >>>allowed: a3 null d4 null null d5 ... >>>etc. >> >>I gues the last one should have been >> >>allowed: a3 null d4 null d5 ... > >That will not find zugzwangs. > >if there is a zugzwang after a3 null d4, then doing a double null after that >will find it. i am interested in seeing zugzwangs with nullmove. with just 1 >rule into my nullmove i can find them without big problems. Hmm, I don't see how you will catch zugzwangs after 3 nullmoves. Each time you nullmove in a zugzwang you change the winning side, doing it 3 times or 5 times is the same as doing it once, AFAICT. >>I think the rule is there must be an equal number of nullmoves. >> >>In special cases the last one might theoreticly fail, ie. if the opponent can't >>undo the zugzwang. >>Say he is forced to capture or move a pawn for instance. >> >>>That this eats more ply to solve some testset trick like a Bxe4 somewhere, bad >>>luck there. >> >>Why, because nullmoving misses a deep threat? > >Because fullwidth in that Bxe4 position is better because a king must walk from >one side of the board to f2 or something. So the reduction factor is the problem >possibly. Nothing to do with zugzwang. Yeah, that's a typical deep threat. I think most pruning schemes have problems dealing with that, one might try and counter balance it by introducing the "right kind" of extensions. :) >But the majority of nerds kick on solving testset problems, sehe Isenberg. tsk,tsk. -S.
This page took 0 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.