Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 12:28:03 06/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2002 at 15:11:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 04, 2002 at 14:35:08, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: > >>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. > >No. > >When I said that the right rules may be dependent on the evaluation I meant that >it is possible that the optimal search rules after improving the evaluation is >different(for example it is possible that null move with R=2 is better for a bad >evaluation when null move with R=3 is better for better evaluation). > >I do not like to waste time about testing when the new search rules may be worse >for the new evaluation. > >What you suggest may be a good idea but today there is only a small set of >search rules and not a large set of search rules. > >Uri Thanks. What I was trying to do is to better understand which positions are evaluated [only the position which occurs immediately after a move? Other positions occurring during search?], the form/format/content of the evaluation findings, and how these might be processed or utilized. Probably different for each chess engine? ***Could there be room for new ideas here?*** Bob D.
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.