Author: martin fierz
Date: 14:26:01 09/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2004 at 16:54:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 27, 2004 at 16:41:01, martin fierz wrote: > >>On September 27, 2004 at 16:36:33, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >> >>>On September 27, 2004 at 15:32:05, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>aloha! >>>> >>>>i just tried the following in my program: >>>> >>>>if a nullmove was tried and it failed, i saved a "nonull"-flag in my hashtable. >>>>when i got a hash hit, i checked whether nonull was set or not, if it was not >>>>set i did not attempt a nullmove. >>>> >>> >>>I don't think you want to do that. Just because the null move failed at the >>>current depth doesn't mean it will fail later at a different depth. >>> >>>Dan H. >> >>i know some people are doing this (among others bob), but i don't know exactly >>when they do it, or why, and how much it helps. any answers are appreciated :-) >> >>cheers >> martin > > >I'm not quite doing that. > >What I do is this: When I get a hash hit, and the draft is not enough to let me >stop the search at that point, I then test the table draft against the depth I >would use for a null move search at this point. If the table draft is >= that >depth, and the table entry says "No way I would fail high here" then there is no >point in trying a null-move search, if a normal move search would not fail >high... > >It's a well-known idea that I believe came from Murray Campbell of the deep >blue/deep thought team... thanks for the explanation! martin
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.