Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 11:35:08 06/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2002 at 13:12:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 04, 2002 at 10:49:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On June 04, 2002 at 08:54:57, José Carlos wrote: >> >>What i read in Dann's words is he is more believing in search >>rather than the knowledge. If that's the case then i think he is >>wrong. >> >>I do not see how to easily improve search either. >> >>Let's compare diep 1998 with diep 2002. >> >>Of course when takling about eval we are quickly finished. It's >>way bigger now and way better. Let's just compare the SEARCH now. >> >>DIEP 2002: 8 probes hashtable, nullmove R=3 always, 2 killermoves, >>complex move ordering but not that much changed last years, >>some complex extensions but those >>do not contribute much to the game, at most solve testsets a bit >>sooner. quiescencesearch is pretty complex but compared to 1998 >>very simple as i do way more there now. >> >>Now DIEP 1998, this is a very complex search. First of all i did >>all kind of efforts to not get too undeep. It was getting not enough >>depth at tournament level to even see basic tactics which i see. >> >>So i did all kind of difficult forward pruning. Also weird things >>like special killertables were used. Special information was gathered >>in order to search less last few plies and qsearch was way more >>limited. Nearly no check was extended in the main search, because >>this was to expensive. Hardly any extension was done there. >> >>Of course it was not a parallel engine, but that's about only thing >>which has become more complex in search, though it in fact is still the >>same type of search. >> >>In short my search has become much simpler, especially when talking >>about quiescencesearch. I'm not blinking with my eyes now to have >>a bigger overhead there! > >Better search rules does not mean always more complex rules. > >The right rules also may be dependent on the evaluation and I think that this is >a good reason after getting to the level of programs like my program that is in >similiar level to the Baron to start with improving the evaluation(otherwise you >may waste time on implementing some rules that are good for your stupid program >when you will need to change them when you have a better program). > >I do not like the idea of writing a lot of evaluation code for a lot of cases >and I think that a better idea is to think about few rules that generalize a >lot of cases. > > >Uri Is it fair to infer from the above that you are doing the following? (1) First evaluate a position, (2) Then chose a small set of "search rules" from a large set of available rules [available in your software], with this selection based on the findings of the position evaluation, (3) And, finally, perform a search from that position using the selected "search rules"? Bob D.
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.