Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:32:02 08/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 1999 at 01:33:35, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On August 12, 1999 at 01:10:14, blass uri wrote: > >>This example shows that the null move is not a very good idea. >>If you need more 3*2=6 plies to see the right move and there is no >>zunzwnag(playing no move cannot help black) then you are not close to see >>everything to depth n-r with null move. >> >>I thought depth n when you use null move with R=2 means that except for >>zunzwangs you analyse everything to depth n-2 and I see that it is not the case. >> >>Uri > >Well, null-move is as you described, but what is shown above is "recursive >null-move", which seems to be pretty popular, and some people abbreviate >this as simply "null-move". It is the sort of search algorithm that gives >people a happy feeling inside about how deep they are searching, but leaves >holes for programs like DB to drive a truck through. Of course, Bob has pointed >this out more than once before. Consider how much is being chopped out of some >13 ply search, and you might agree that Bob isn't just being stubborn: there's >actually quite a big difference in coverage. > >Of course, those who use recursive null-move are making the reasonable gamble >that the extra coverage isn't beneficial at their search speeds. > >Dave Now this is pure BS. Even at 5 0 Deep blue gets kicked silly by a laptop.
This page took 0.01 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.