Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 01:17:48 04/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
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. Goetsch and Campbell's description is very close to what we are doing today. Surely null-move has evolved since then (recursion, other R values), but the core idea is presented quite clearly in that paper. > >Ed > > >>Beal, D.F. (1989). Experiments with the null move. Advances in Computer Chess >>5, (Ed. D.F. Beal) , pp. 65--79. >> >>Goetsch, G. and Campbell, M.S. (1990). Experiments with the null-move heuristic. >>Computers, Chess, and Cognition, (Eds. T.A. Marsland and J. Schaeffer), pp. >>159--168.
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.