Günther Demetz

No feedback anymore from maintainer, is this project still alive?

Thanks for response @samskivert , I understand your situation & thanks for the work done! Will have to speak with my boss in order to understand how we will use...

Congrats about this finding XInTheDark, it's a pleasant surprise. However what I don't like so much about is, that it now allows recursive verification. Per se recursive verification wouldn't be...

Looks like with the patch now in contrast to current master following positions are not solved any more within 25 seconds using singlecore and 256 mb hash: ``` 8/8/8/1B6/6p1/8/3K1Ppp/3N2kr w...

>>I wonder what can we understand from that. When the more enhanced zugzwang detection logic was introduced by this [commit](https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/commit/b53239d6410cfc87bf454370671390b04879ef05)) LTC test passed with [-3.00,1.00] bounds and it had a...

@dubslow do you reffer to [this test](https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/6430d294028b029b01accb2c) ? If yes then sorry, then you did not understand what im talking about.

> Yes, that's what I meant. Our current zugzwang detection code has no statistically-significant elo cost compared to _not_ doing it, as shown by that test. (If the zugzwang detection...

> This test to guard against the recursive verification failed also: https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/64444eb894ff3db5625f3377 This test was IMO actually more a test to see if we can disable recursive null move search....

@vondele Yes I have reservations against this PR. >>The testing seems to suggest this could be removed zugzwang-detection is something similar to mate-detection ability: line 777 of current search.cpp could...