Author: Sylvain Lacombe
Date: 13:52:32 02/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 1999 at 15:37:58, Don Dailey wrote: >On February 24, 1999 at 01:16:56, Sylvain Lacombe wrote: > >> >>I just finished implementing the null move. At first, i thought it wasn't saving >>much time. Then, i reallize that it does save alot, but only at deeper plys. On >>the first few plys, i think, it evens slow me down. Is that normal? Am i doing >>something wrong? >> >>I don't use the null move at the first ply, only at the second. It save about >>40% reaching deep 6. But it takes about 10% more for reaching deep 3 and 4. >> >>Hope, you can help. >> >>Thanks. >> >>Sylvain. > > >This sounds to me as if you are doing something less than optimal >near end nodes. The issue is what do you do when you only have >1 or 2 ply left to search anyway? Do you go into quies or call >your main search again? It's easy to get this wrong if you are >not careful. "Wrong" doesn't mean a broken program, it means >something much less than optimal. > I go in quiescence when there is no more plys to search (depth=0). Except for the razoring tricks. If at depth = 1 the eval tell me that it's not going very good, then i jump to quesc instead. What i call nodes is when quiescence return. When depth = 0, i'm near the end nodes. Is that what you mean? >My program is a mixture of static rules and null move. I do null >move when I have significant depth remaining, but when I am near >end nodes I do a simple static attack analysis. This has proven >to be a significant improvement to my chess program. It is faster >than null move and slightly riskier, but the net affect is >a stronger chess program (for me.) Even though it's probably >riskier, it does pick up things null move will miss although the >converse is also true. > >- Don
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.