Author: Joshua Haglund
Date: 14:12:21 02/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 29, 2004 at 16:29:27, Uri Blass wrote:
>On February 29, 2004 at 16:21:52, Joshua Haglund wrote:
>
>>On February 29, 2004 at 13:12:31, Matthias Gemuh wrote:
>>
>>>On February 29, 2004 at 12:20:03, Joshua Haglund wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 29, 2004 at 03:20:30, Matthias Gemuh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My engine has a very unstable and unreliable search.
>>>>>Sometimes I think I implemented what you are proposing.
>>>>>My opinion is that the blindness introduced by such tricks would really hurt.
>>>>>
>>>>>/Matthias.
>>>>
>>>>yes! it wouldn't do the best search if it didn't reach great depth where f = 3;
>>>>If your engine searches deep try ply > 12. If it doesn't try ply 8, etc... :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have reason to believe a person will gain atleast 1 ply in the same amount of
>>>>searched time.
>>>>
>>>>example
>>>>time = 30;
>>>>ply 7 = 4 seconds.
>>>>ply 8 = 13
>>>>no more plies reached.
>>>>
>>>>// with idea.
>>>>time = 30;
>>>>ply 7 = 1 second
>>>>ply 8 = 5
>>>>ply 9 = 20 seconds
>>>>
>>>>Maybe this would be good for long time controls? Skip shallow and go to deeper
>>>>lines.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your reply,
>>>>
>>>>Joshua Haglund
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The effort used to search shallow plys this way is a waste because good parts
>>>of the tree get pruned. You progress rapidly into a tree that lacks some
>>>key moves.
>>>
>>>/Matthias.
>>
>>The idea is to progress quickly into the tree with weak moves then to look for
>>good moves when at greater depth.
>
>The problem is that you have no idea which moves are good moves.
>
>If you have algorithm to detect fast 3 moves that one of them is the best move
>then you are right but you need to find algorithm to do it.
>
>Humans do not have algorithm to detect fast 3 moves that one of them is the best
>and often need to search more than 3 moves so how do you expect computers to
>have it when the stupid humans who need to search more than 3 moves write the
>programs?
>
>Uri
You are right the move are probably not very good. But, if you find a legal
move... well here is a visual example:
ply score time moves
// start search by just looking at x number of moves.
// x = 3 moves.
// uses hardly no time to get to ply 10.
...
8 -.20 0.50 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1b5 a7a6 b5c6 b7c6
9 -.30 1.70 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1b5 a7a6 b5a4 b7b5 a4b3
10 -.15 2.90 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1b5 a7a6 b5a4 b7b5 a4b3 c2c3
// continue search where x = all moves
// here is where it starts to looks at all the moves.
// this could cause the root move to change.
11 +.20 14.23 c2c4 e7e5 e2e4 g8f6 b1c3 f8c5 d2d3 d7d6 d1e2 b8c6 c1e3
12 +.30 30.55 d2d4 d7d5 c2c4 d5c4 e2e3 g8f6 f1c4 e7e6 b1c3 a7a6 g1f3 c7c5
13 +.09 59.55 d2d4 d7d5 c2c4 d5c4 e2e3 g8f6 f1c4 e7e6 b1c3
a7a6 c1d2 c7c5 d1c2
As you can SEE* it took no time to get to a good depth and then we started
looking for "good moves"... not saying what I posted are not good to begin with.
Thanks for your replies,
Joshua Haglund
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.