Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: revolution in computer chess

Author: Stuart Cracraft

Date: 11:04:17 01/03/06

Go up one level in this thread


On January 03, 2006 at 12:53:33, Uri Blass wrote:

>On January 03, 2006 at 12:18:58, Tord Romstad wrote:
>
>>On January 03, 2006 at 11:49:05, Robert Allgeuer wrote:
>>
>>>On January 03, 2006 at 10:49:54, Maurizio Monge wrote:
>>>
>>>>What you said is surely true.
>>>>But what i find strange is that, IIRC, the only quite new technic in computer
>>>>chess that can be found in fruit is history pruning, everything else is just a
>>>
>>>History pruning was already in use in SmarThink and other engines before as
>>>well. If I am not completely mistaken history pruning was invented by Sergej for
>>>SmarThink.
>>
>>It is possible that Sergei introduced the name "history pruning", but the
>>technique itself is very old; certainly much older than SmarThink.
>
>You are right and Movei use it for some years.
>First public version of movei to use history based reduction was 07_99
>
>I did not talk about it at that time but I used it and I am not going to be
>surprised if other also used it earlier.
>
>  I no
>>longer remember where or when I heard about it for the first time, but it was
>>definitely not in this millennium.
>>
>>"History pruning" is a really bad name for the technique, by the way.  Since
>>a long time, I have been advocating to rename it to "late move reductions".
>>
>>The word "history" is misleading because the technique can be implemented
>>without using history counters.
>
>In this case it is not history based pruning.
>I certainly use history counters but it is possible that I can improve it by not
>using history counters and using different conditions instead of them.
>
>Today I use combination of evaluation and history information to decide about
>reduction.
>
>
>  I currently use a combination of null move
>>threat detection and evaluation data to make my late move reduction decisions,
>>and don't use history counters at all.  This seems to work clearly better,
>>at least in my program.
>
>originally when I implemented it I had no condition about late move reduction
>but later I changed it and at least today I never reduce the first move.
>
>>
>>The word "pruning" is misleading because most people don't use the idea
>>to prune moves, but only to reduce the search depth.
>
>I agree that the word reduction is better.
>>
>>"Late move reductions" is a much more appropriate name, and does a better
>>job of explaining what the idea is about:  Reducing the depth for the less
>>interesting moves late in the move list.
>>
>>Tord
>
>The idea is to reduce the depth of moves that you are almost sure that they are
>going to fail low.
>
>Uri

And how do you decide this?



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.