Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 12:59:19 09/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2004 at 06:35:11, martin fierz wrote: >On September 30, 2004 at 05:00:31, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 30, 2004 at 04:52:12, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On September 30, 2004 at 00:46:26, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 29, 2004 at 23:52:15, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >>>> >>>>>[D] 4r1k1/p1qr1p2/2pb1Bp1/1p5p/3P1n1R/1B3P2/PP3PK1/2Q4R w - - bm Qxf4; >>>>> >>>>>In this position I had everything turned on and got the solution >>>>>in a little more than 1 1/2 minutes: >>>>> >>>>> 1/11 g2f1 0.01 -953 945 g2f1 f4d5 >>>>> g2f1 f4d5 >>>>> 2/12 g2f1 0.01 -953 1644 >>>>> g2f1 f4d5 c1g5 >>>>> 3/12 g2f1 0.02 -953 5064 >>>>> g2f1 f4d5 c1g5 d5f6 >>>>> 4/20 g2f1 0.09 -953 20655 >>>>> g2f1 f4d5 b3d5 c6d5 c1c7 d6c7 f1g1 >>>>> 5/22 g2f1 0.65 -953 168943 >>>>> g2f1 b5b4 b3a4 f4d5 f6g5 d5e7 >>>>> 6/26 g2f1 2.59 -953 620310 >>>>> g2f1 b5b4 mtmt >>>>> 7/32> g2f1 60.58 -552 14192153 g2f1 e8c8 c1b1 f4d5 b1e4 d6b4 f6e5 c7b6 >>>>> g2f1 e8c8 c1b1 f4d5 b1e4 d6b4 >>>>> 7/34 c1f4 99.42 5113 24537823 c1f4 e8e6 f4g5 d7e7 b3e6 e7e6 h1d1 d6e7 f6e7 >>>>> c1f4 e8e6 f4g5 d7e7 b3e6 e7e6 h1d1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I turned off null move (R=2) and got the solution in about 11 seconds: >>>>> >>>>>Alpha=-1332 Beta=-531 Maxdepth=9999999 MaxTime=99999999 >>>>> 1/11 g2f1 0.01 -953 908 g2f1 f4d5 >>>>> g2f1 f4d5 >>>>> 2/12 g2f1 0.01 -953 1565 >>>>> g2f1 f4d5 c1g5 >>>>> 3/14 g2f1 0.07 -953 20084 >>>>> g2f1 f4d5 c1g5 d5f6 >>>>> 4/22 g2f1 0.60 -953 131543 >>>>> g2f1 f4d5 b3d5 c6d5 c1c7 d6c7 f1g1 >>>>> 5/26>g2f1 6.80 -552 1607444 >>>>> g2f1 b5b4 b3a4 f4d5 f6g5 d5e7 >>>>> 5/36 c1f4 10.70 2260 2466497 c1f4 d6f4 h4h5 g6h5 h1h5 f4h6 h5h6 c7g3 g2g3 d7d6 >>>>> >>>>> c1f4 d6f4 h4h5 g6h5 h1h5 f4h6 h5h6 c7g3 g2g3 d7d >>>>> >>>>>So now my question is, would it make sense to consider an idea of >>>>>disabling null move under additional circumstances if those >>>>>circumstances can be identified. >>>>> >>>>> endgame >>>>> side to move in check >>>>> inside principal variation >>>>> last move a null move >>>>> >>>>>These are the ones I disable for -- I don't disable null move for >>>>>any material-related or alpha/beta related measures but perhaps >>>>>I should. Are any in common use? >>>>> >>>>>Stuart >>>> >>>>It is better to disable your recapture extensions. >>>>The problem here is not null move pruning and null move pruning willnot change >>>>the depth that you solve the problem when you will implement correctly checks in >>>>the qsearch. >>>> >>>>The target of chess programs is not to solve 141 faster but to play better. >>>>I am almost sure that if only the recapture extension save you many plies in 141 >>>>then you implement it in a way that is counter productive for games. >>>> >>>> >>>>I wonder how do you get depth 5 without null move pruning >>>> >>>>Can you post the remaining depth after every move in the line >>>>1.Qxf4 Bxf4 2.Rxh5 gxh5 3.Rxh5 Bh6 4.Rxh6 Rd6 Rh8# >>>> >>>>There are no checks in this line except the mate and you do checks in the >>>>qsearch so without recapture extensions you need at least 9 plies for it(after 8 >>>>plies you enter qsearch after Rd6 and do not find the move Rh8 mate. >>>> >>>>If recapture extensions lead to 4 plies extension then it seems clear that your >>>>new program will be clearly weaker in games. >>>> >>>>I suspect that you extend 4 plies in this line because you extend 1 ply every >>>>time that the last 2 moves are captures. >>>> >>>>It is clearly a bad idea to do it and it is clear that even with more reasonable >>>>restriction of the recapture extension it is not productive for a lot of >>>>programs. >>>> >>>>I suggest that you test the version with the recapture extension in games >>>>against the version without the recapture extension if you do not believe me >>>>that your recapture extension is a bad idea. >>>> >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>hi uri, >>> >>>where do you see recapture extensions influencing WAC.141? the main line has no >>>single "recapture" if you define it as "capture of a piece of the same value, on >>>the same square, on two successive plies". i think that is the normal definition >>>of recapture. >>> >>>what am i missing? >>> >>>cheers >>> martin >> >>It seems that >>Stuart Cracraft defines it as 2 consecutive captures. >> >>He probably extend the line that I showed by 4 plies for that reason: >> >>1.Qxf4 Bxf4 =>extension >>1...Bxf4 2.Rxh5=>extension >>2.Rxh5 gxh5=>extension >>2...gxh5 3.Rxh5=>extension >> >>I tried to understand how can he get Wac141 at depth 5 without null move pruning >>when he is using no checks in the qsearch and no mate threat extensions and this >>was my conclusion and based on his response I understand that my conclusion was >>correct. >> >>Uri > >hi uri, > >i see. now i also understand your recommendation to limit recaptures - i think >it's rather obvious that this type of recapture extension is horrible! > >for me, using a normal recapture extension (as defined in my previous post) is >doing ok - i don't really see a difference compared to not doing it in engine >matches, it scored a tiny bit better but nothing significant. i left it in since >it seems sensible to me "on general grounds" i.e. as a human player i also use >this extension :-) > >cheers > martin Yay to Martin! Are you sure you want to side with me on that point? Uri and Bob are about to open our collective eyes I bet!
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.