Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 11:20:29 04/30/04

Go up one level in this thread

On April 30, 2004 at 02:17:02, Ed Schröder wrote:

>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.

Frans Morsch earns more credit than that. He has put it in a program that was
very advanced for its time (even won world title). Now *then* people are
convinced you do something interesting...

Of course same is true for Chrilly. Frans says that Chrilly article triggered
him to implement it.

I have seen thousands of papers about neural networks and learning with them,
but i do not care a thing for them. If however a program scores a significant
result with it to my opinion, i will take a serious look at it :)

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.