Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 16:24:37 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
[snip] > > >OK... change that to "middlegame position". Same result. I don't reach >endgame positions very often from middlegame positions. Usually not until >around move 40 or so in a real game. That leaves 40 moves to search with >no regard to null-move failures at all. And if the program is smart enough to >switch null-move off when it is not appropriate, rather than just turning it off >at the root, this is a total non-issue... for _any_ position you care to name... > >So my original statement remains accurate... A bigger tree is _not_ more >prone to null-move failures than a smaller one... Keep changing it. Ignoring what Dan wrote, here is what _you_ wrote: "what makes you think that in a 10 ply search, where there are N zug positions, that in a search space 10 times bigger there are more than 10*N zug positions?" The assumption _you_ make is there are a non-zero number of "zug positions" within a 10 ply search. Obviously, _you_ made the tacit assumption that the position in question is one very much like one encountered at around move 40 or so. This is _your_ premise. This is why _your_ argument fails. Your argument clearly does not consider just any random middlegame position. Most middle game positions will not yield a zugzwang position within a 10 ply search. Your argument addresses those middlegame positions where zugzwangs _do_ arise within a 10 ply search, so the game _is_ necessarily pretty far along in the vast majority of such cases. You keep trying to re-invent the premises to make your argument work. Wouldn't it be simpler to admit you made a mistake? Then you could amend your argument so it works. Instead you want to create the pretense your argument was fine all along. Why do you want to do this?
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.