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. >>> >>>Ed > > >>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 >>needed... > >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. >Ed 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.