Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Ed Schröder

Date: 23:17:02 04/29/04

Go up one level in this thread

On April 29, 2004 at 23:22:26, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On April 29, 2004 at 19:26:32, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>On April 29, 2004 at 18:05:29, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>>On April 29, 2004 at 09:28:53, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>>>On April 29, 2004 at 07:37:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>[ snips ]
>>>>>>This is all very poor Vince, I assume you don't play much with nowadays top
>>>>>>programs. From 1982 to 2001 Rebel won its games by positional understanding and
>>>>>>not by search and Rebel lost its games because it was outsearched. Today Rebel
>>>>>>isn't outsearched at all, it now loses its games because the current top
>>>>>>programs have a better positional understanding than Rebel.
>>>>>>You should have a good look at the current tops, the positional progress has
>>>>>>been great the last years. To me it all seems to indicate (provided your search
>>>>>>is okay) the only way to make progress is to improve on chess knowledge. But
>>>>>>what's new, I already came to that conclusion in 1986 after some intensive talks
>>>>>>with Hans Berliner.
>>>>>What i mean is Ed, is that you would not have accomplished the great results
>>>>>with Rebel which you managed, had you just searched with a fullwidth search +
>>>>>bunch of checks in qsearch.
>>>>No of course not, brute force is silly, Rebel since day 1 has been a selective
>>>>program. But I am getting your point, in the days before the nullmove was
>>>>discovered Genius and Rebel had the best (static) selective search, a dominant
>>>>factor in their successes, is that what you meant to say? If so, it is true.
>>>>If only Frans had kept his mouth shut to Chrilly (Chrilly leaking nullmove in
>>>>the ICCA journal) it is very likely Fritz would been the next Richard Lang still
>>>>dominating all the rating lists and WCC's for the last decade. But Frans didn't
>>>>and then all bets were off.
>>>Donninger published the article in 1993. Before that, there were two other
>>>publications dealing with null-move:
>>Yes, nullmove as we use it today, the other 2 articles not.

>Campbell's paper is _exactly_ as I do it today less the recursive nature.  He
>specifically mentioned different R values and said more testing with R=2 was

But missing the recursive ingredient. Nullmove without recursion is a nice
reduction idea, nullmove with recursion changes a brute force program into a
powerful selective search program.

Beal and Campbell (in that order) deserve credit for the original nullmove idea,
Frans Morsch for adding the recursion element.


This page took 0.01 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.