Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 23:41:57 11/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 1999 at 22:03:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On November 14, 1999 at 21:45:26, William Bryant wrote: > >>I recently found that my null threashold is set to low, and I am experimenting >>with different level. > >I'm using a reduction factor of 3 in DIEP. > >>I am curious what other people have found works for them. >> >>Do you count pieces or pieces and pawns? > >For nullmove? > >>How may pieces or pieces and pawns must be present for the side on move >>to allow a null move? > >My nullmove implementation is basically allowing >doing a nullmove now if > > - king side to move is not in check > - one of both sides is not in pawn endgame > - last 2 consecutive moves were not nullmoves > >This last condition takes care you detect zugzwang too. This allowing of a double nullmove to detect zugzwang is a very elegant idea. I'm wondering, is anyone else (other than Vincent) using it? I plan to try it one day, but I have too many other things to do to LambChop first! >If you add extra conditions that are only valid for one >side then you already might not detect zugzwang anymore. > >So in fact i nearly always nullmove except if both sides >are in the pawn endgame and side to move not in check. > >Simply always nullmove has a big advantage that you can detect >threats in a consequent way and that you *always* try to reduce >your tree first at the same time. > >>Thanks in advance. > >You're welcome, >Vincent Diepeveen > >>William >>wbryant@ix.netcom.com
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.