Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:27:26 07/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2002 at 16:21:10, Christophe Theron wrote: >On July 20, 2002 at 16:02:54, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On July 20, 2002 at 15:37:00, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On July 19, 2002 at 23:12:28, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On July 19, 2002 at 23:08:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 22:15:31, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 21:43:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 15:50:44, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 15:25:48, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2002 at 12:14:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2002 at 05:58:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On July 17, 2002 at 13:18:40, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On July 16, 2002 at 11:01:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 15, 2002 at 13:11:09, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 15, 2002 at 08:37:34, Omid David wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't think using double null-move is a good idea in practice, since in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>midgame the chance of zugzwang is negligible and thus it's superfluous (I doubt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if even DIEP uses it). However the contribution of double null-move is that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gives legitimacy to the null-move pruning idea, proving that it _is_ a correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>search method (anyway, no one doubts null-move nowadays). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why does double null move prove that null move is a correct search method???? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Doing two null moves in a row means going back to standard search (a search not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>involving an illegal move like null move is). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I fail to see how it legitimates null move. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Double nullmove legitimates (duh can't you use easier to spell words) >>>>>>>>>>>>>itself, for the obvious reason that it is provable now that a search >>>>>>>>>>>>>depth of n ply, where i may pick n, is going to solve any problem you >>>>>>>>>>>>>give it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>OK, I see now. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>However, it is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Due to a nasty interaction with the hash table algorithms, just allowing 2 null >>>>>>>>>>>>moves in a row will NOT solve any problem. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>What you refer to is a practical impossibility (assuming you have >>>>>>>>>>>a efficient search) : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> your assumption is that from a root position r >>>>>>>>>>> with transition of some moves to position p, side stm to move and >>>>>>>>>>> depthleft=d: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> r ==> p(stm,d) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> that you visit this position with properties that >>>>>>>>>>> before this move you have made 1 nullmove or less. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so ==> r , nullmove , p >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now a major problem for such an event to occur is that >>>>>>>>>>> after 1 nullmove, sides change the side to move. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Why is this a problem? IE in my case, position P reached thru a path >>>>>>>>>>with a null-move and position P reached thru a path without null-move >>>>>>>>>>are _unique_ positions... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If so, your programs loses a lot of opportunities to prune because it detects >>>>>>>>>less transpositions. But maybe it avoids some problems and is benefical in the >>>>>>>>>end, I do not know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>How much do programs earn by pruning based on hash tables? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Today I do not use hash tables to prune the tree. >>>>>>>>I am interested to know how much rating programs earn from >>>>>>>>using hash tables to prune the tree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1)Did someone do the experiment of comparing the rating of >>>>>>>>a chess program when hash tables are used only for things like order >>>>>>>>of moves and the rating of the same program when hash tables are used also for >>>>>>>>also to prune the tree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2)How much speed improvement do programs get in middle game >>>>>>>>from pruning based on hash tables? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Try position fine 70 with and without. Without you might get to depth 15 >>>>>>>or so. With it you can reach depth 40. A _significant_ gain... >>>>>> >>>>>>You're trying to drive Uri crazy aren't you? >>>>>> >>>>>>Did you really think Uri could not think of an example of a position where >>>>>>having hash tables makes a significant difference? >>>>>> >>>>>>Do you really think being able to search a position like Fine 70 to a depth of >>>>>>40 instead of 15 will make a difference in a programs playing strength? >>>>>> >>>>>>Don't you realize people are liable to react to such a reply as yours above as a >>>>>>troll? >>>>>> >>>>>>Please try to be a bit more thoughtful. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>There was _no_ troll involved. Point by point. >>>>> >>>>>fine 70 _is_ an important hash test. It represents a near-best-case for >>>>>hashing. Which is the best you can do. It increases the search depth by >>>>>at least a factor of 3x in terms of plies searched. >>>>> >>>>>Will that help the program? Clearly in king and pawn endings I see 20+ ply >>>>>searches _all_ the time. And _that_ definitely helps for those positions where >>>>>K+P endings are reached. >>>>> >>>>>But if you want to take a middlegame position, hashing is worth at least a >>>>>factor of 2x based on tests I have run in the past. I can always run them >>>>>again. >>>>> >>>>>So to summarize, fine 70 was and is legitimate. It _clearly_ shows that >>>>>hashing makes a significant difference. I hardly see why _your_ post wouldn't >>>>>be considered a "troll" in fact. As it attacks a legitimate point in a >>>>>utterly simplistic and wrong context... >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps you should follow your own advice and try to be more thoughtful. >>>>>_prior_ to posting??? >>>> >>>>I did. You didn't...again. >>> >>> >>> >>>Bob's post (the one you originally responded to) was perfectly fine. He just >>>gave a meaningful information. >>> >>>Your posts are really borderline. I really fail to see what is the problem with >>>Bob's post. >>> >>>Please don't start a war here. There is really no point. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I'm perplexed as to why you would take RHs side in this. My post was pretty mild >>compared to some of the others that get posted here without rebuke from a >>moderator including some of your own posts. I can only conclude that it is due >>to RH's status in this forum. So be it. I will make no further posts in this >>thread. > > > >No it's just that I see that this is going to degenerate pretty quickly into >name-calling due to Bob's nature and your -in my opinion- unjustified comment. > >Yes your comment was mild, but it was not justified (again, in my opinion). I >know Bob is going to react very harshly, and before he does I prefer to ask the >one who was wrong (you, in my opinion) to reconsider. > >If I don't act immediately I will have to moderate Bob, and I'm not sure what is >going to happen then. :) > > > > Christophe Doesn't bother me at all to be moderated, as a general rule. I've said all I intend to say anyway. No idea why he reacted as he did. No idea how he missed the point I tried to make. But it isn't that important. The rest seemed to "get it" ok..
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.