Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:10:40 08/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 1999 at 08:32:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Your response is the "pure BS". It doesn't even address the main part of my post, and what it does say is factually incorrect. Dave
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.