Author: Will Singleton
Date: 18:55:32 02/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 1999 at 19:32:18, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On February 10, 1999 at 19:00:03, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 10, 1999 at 17:20:34, Dan Homan wrote: >>[snip] >>>This is a very interesting observation. Maybe it would be right to >>>say that null move might be a "waste" of time if the material score >>>is not close to beta? Taken a step further... some kind of a "windowed" >>>null-move might be a good idea. >>> >>>I tried this in my program. I changed my null move code so that >>>a null move would only be tried *only* if the material score for the side >>>to move was greater than (beta-1.5*pawn_value). This reduced my >>>searched nodes from 5-10% in most of the positions I have tried so >>>far. (I have only tried a handful of WAC positions so far.) >>> >>>If this pans out, It is a perfectly safe enhancement to >>>null-move. The 1.5 pawn window that I tried was arbitrary; >>>another value might do better. >>What an incredibly creative idea! > >Not a new idea ;-) > >bruce > Implying that you either use something like this or have found it to be not worthwhile. If you use it, what window value do you use, and does it change depending on the situation? Will
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.