Author: Will Singleton
Date: 18:52:21 02/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 1999 at 15:53:49, Don Dailey wrote: >Your statement about not using two null moves in row shouldn't matter. >I had this rule in my program and Don Beal asked me, "why?" I took >it out and the program worked fine. I think a few years ago >my implementation of null move needed this rule to prevent infinite >recursion, but I cannot remember for the life of me why this was so. >The worst that can happen is that you do more depth reduced >searches which is such a tiny fraction of the whole you will not be >able to measure the difference in time. But even this won't happen >if you do not do a null move search when the "stand pat" score is >already below beta. Some programs do the null move selectivity anyway, >or they do it if the score is CLOSE to beta. However I decided to >ignore any minor speedups this gave because it also introduces >some risk. I really doubt you can prove one is better than the >other and my current program doesn't even register a speedup for >this. > >- Don Two nulls in a row?? I don't understand that. How could either side move at all if you have consecutive null moves? Or maybe you mean multiple nulls along the same branch? 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.