Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:06:22 03/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2004 at 15:44:51, Harald Lüßen wrote: >On March 27, 2004 at 10:28:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 26, 2004 at 16:38:35, Joachim Rang wrote: >> >>>I'm testing with an engine which allows to define an aspiration window, what are >>>common values? >>> >>>thx in advance >>> >>>Joachim >> >> >>+/- .4 to .5 has worked best for me. I've tried even +/- .25... > >Does it make sense to start with a big window and narrow it? >bounds = 100; // a pawn >for ( iteration ... ) >{ > score = search(...) > bounds = max( bounds * 8 / 10, 10 ); > ... >} > >And to be speculative: Can I assume that chess is nearly drawn >and I can always find good moves. If I am threatened and suffer >a fail low at my starting window around the evaluation score or >around 0 I need not change the window but the search depth. This >is part of the motivation of human chess players before the game. >"I am a stronger player than this guy and I can always draw!" >I don't believe it myself but why is this wrong (in practice)? > >Harald If you plot nodes searched vs aspiration window, you will get something like this: | | * * N | * * O | * * D | * * E | * * S | * * | * * | * * | * * | * * | * * | * * | * * | ***** ________________________________________________________ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 .... Aspiration Window Width The idea is that for a given engine, there is an optimal aspiration window. Make it too small and you do too many re-searches when the root score comes back outside the window. make it too big and you search a larger tree since the window doesn't help much. You might want to handle odd/even ply differently as well as without a lot of extensions, you can get score oscillation as you go from odd to even and back to odd...
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.