Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:31:56 02/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2004 at 13:03:59, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On February 05, 2004 at 12:47:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 05, 2004 at 12:38:20, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>On February 05, 2004 at 12:22:44, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Bob Hyatt: >>>> >>>>I was going through the older CCC bulletins to make sure I didn't miss anything >>>>important and noticed the thread begun by Russell, >>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?345569. After checking Russell's >>>>reference, I saw something you wrote cited below. This made me really curious >>>>about how the alpha/beta algorithm might be impacted by improvements in the >>>>position evaluation code. It seems to me, intuitively, that accurate assessment >>>>of positional [and other non-material] factors in a position, along with the >>>>correct assessment of material factors, would give >>>>values which would change the interpretations of failing alpha or beta tests. >>>>It seems that this would significantly alter the way searching would proceed. >>>> >>>>If this is unclear, I can try to be more detailed if you wish. [I never claimed >>>>to be a Pulitzer Prize winning author.] >>>> >>>>Bob D. >>> >>>Hey, you are starting to realize why it is so hard to write a good chess program >>>:) >>> >>>One of the reasons Crafty gets good search depth is that it keeps a lot of the >>>piece eval simple. For example, Rooks in crafty have just 4 patterns: open >>>file, 7th rank, behind (friendly|enemy) passed pawn. The advantage here is that >>>the eval is very quantized [0 | 20 | 40]. In Zappa, I do a true (and fairly >>>complex) mobility calculation. The advantage is that this catches a lot of >>>cases that crafty does not, for example a rook lift >> >>You didn't look far enough. Crafty handles this but at another place in the >>evaluation. Also I do more than "open files" There are half-open files. I >>also catch the rook lift directly as I look in _front_ of the rook to see if I >>hit any of my own pawns. If not, I like it. And if it bears on the opponent's >>king, I like it even more. >> >>I'm not sure where your "only 4 patterns" came from. Unless you just looked at >>the comments alone. IE this: >> >>/* >> ************************************************************ >> * * >> * determine if the rook is on an open file. if it is, * >> * determine if this rook attacks another friendly rook, * >> * making it difficult to drive the rooks off the file. * >> * * >> ************************************************************ >> */ >> trop = 7; >> if (!(file_mask[file] & tree->all_pawns)) { >> score += ROOK_OPEN_FILE; >> trop = FileDistance(square, tree->b_kingsq); >> } else { >> if (tree->pawn_score.open_files) { >> unsigned char rankmvs = AttacksRank(square) >> (56 - (square & 0x38)); >> >> if (!(rankmvs & tree->pawn_score.open_files)) >> score -= ROOK_OPEN_FILE >> 1; >> } >> if (!(file_mask[file] & WhitePawns)) { >> score += ROOK_HALF_OPEN_FILE; >> trop = FileDistance(square, tree->b_kingsq); >> } else if (!(plus8dir[square] & WhitePawns)) { >> trop = FileDistance(square, tree->b_kingsq); >> } >> } >> >>It does a _lot_ more than just open files in that block of code... >> >>I don't like rook mobility myself. I used to do it and it is not very expensive >>(IE I do bishop mobility at present already). I think the concept of open files >>and half-open files is just another way to express mobility, as is rook on the >>7th. however I don't blindly go for rook on the 7th as some do, it has to have >>a reason for being there or it can be pointless. > >There's no need to be so defensive. I haven't read the Crafty source in a while >as I've pretty much found all your secrets already, so I forgot a few things. wasn't trying to be "defensive". Just "informative". You had made a statement that wasn't correct about Crafty, and I was just pointing that out to not leave a wrong impression. >Note also that you are handling only the kingsafety for rook lift here. If I >have WP@B2, WR@B3, BP@B7, BR@B8, Zappa will give white an advantage and crafty >will not. yes, but if the bp is at b6, there isn't much of an advantage. I prefer to pick up the "advantage" by seeing the file half-open-up at some point. > >Anyway, the point remains: You are taking rook mobility, breaking out what you >feel are 4-5 key cases, and implementing those. Advantage: quantization and >speed. Disadvantage: doesn't catch all cases. Its simply a tradeoff for the >programmer to make. > >anthony I disagree. your approach doesn't catch all cases either. The one I gave previously is one example. with pawns at f7 g6 and h7, a rook on the g-file is not a serious threat unless you push your own f and h pawns to try to attack that g-pawn. But once it goes away we both notice it is good. So we both are going to miss some things, and it is just a matter of picking which you like best. I didn't choose to not do mobility for rooks because of the cost. I didn't like some of the moves it produces. IE unnecessary pawn advances, or not liking rooks side-by-side because they interfere with mobility, etc... I don't think you have to count squares to do adequate mobility. With today's search depth, if you have a rook on an open file, most likely you can see deep enough, once the file gets opened or half-opened on the enemy king, so that you can get the rook over there within the normal search horizon. Other pieces can use mobility better. Bishops are a good example and I do mobility for them since it is not an expensive term at all with table lookups available. however, I happen to believe that often mobility is a _result_ of something good happening, not the "cause". > >> >>>(R@B3 P@B2 BP@B7) or a rook >>>on the 8/6th ranks (which can also be powerful). The disadvantage is that the >>>eval is much less quantized. [0 | 1 | 2 ... | 40]. This means that move >>>ordering is worse, and so I search less deeply with mobility on than with >>>mobility off (not to mention the speed loss). I believe the depth I lose is >>>worth Zappa playing a somewhat more natural game, but it is a tradeoff that >>>everyone has to make for themselves, of course. >>> >>>anthony >>> >>> >>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22The+meaning+of+Alpha+and+Beta%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=a6d9ho%24899%241%40juniper.cis.uab.edu&rnum=1 >>>> >>>>Referenced by: >>>> >>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?345569 >>>> >>>>> An alpha cutoff is what happens when you search the second move, >>>>>> and you prove that if you play that move, your opponent has a move >>>>>> he can play that will produce a score less than your "lower bound" >>>>>> you established for the first move. There is no need to search >>>>>> further. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, after that +1 on the first move, you try the second >>>>>> move and after trying the first move the opponent has in reply to >>>>>> that move, you discover you _lose_ a pawn. The score is -1.0... >>>>>> There is no need to search other opponent moves to produce a >>>>>> score even lower than -1.00, because you already know this move >>>>>> is at _least_ -1.00 and possibly worse, while the first move is >>>>>> +1.00. You stop searching this move and move on to your third >>>>>> choice...
This page took 0.02 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.