Author: Alessandro Damiani
Date: 08:29:04 09/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 1999 at 09:36:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 10, 1999 at 08:01:35, Alessandro Damiani wrote: > >>On September 10, 1999 at 07:48:44, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On September 10, 1999 at 00:19:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Here is an interesting position given to me by Steffen Jakob: >>>> >>>> /p/P5p/7p/7P/4kpK/// w >>>> >>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>> 8 | | | | | | | | | >>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>> 7 | *P| | | | | | | | >>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>> 6 | P | | | | | | *P| | >>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>> 5 | | | | | | | | *P| >>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>> 4 | | | | | | | | P | >>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>> 3 | | | | | *K| *P| K | | >>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>> 2 | | | | | | | | | >>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>> 1 | | | | | | | | | >>>> +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >>>> a b c d e f g h >>>> >>>> >>>>Obviously black is getting crushed. He has one move, Kh3, which leads to a >>>>mate in 6. Steffen asked me to try this and Crafty found a mate in 4, which >>>>doesn't exist. I spent the entire day debugging this thing and here is what >>>>I found: >>>> >>>>If you recall the discussion here a couple of weeks ago, I reported that I store >>>>absolute mate scores (EXACT scores) in the hash table, and that I adjust them >>>>so that they are always stored as "mate in N from the current position". This >>>>has always worked flawlessly for me, and still does. >>>> >>>>For bounds, I once tried adjusting the bounds as well, but found quirks, and >>>>left them alone. Wrong answer. To fix this mate in 4 problem, I decided to >>>>adjust the bounds as well, but I now set any bound value that is larger than >>>>MATE-300, by reducing it to exactly MATE-300, but still using the "LOWER" >>>>flag to say that this is the lowest value this position could have. For bound >>>>values < -MATE+300, I set them to exactly -MATE+300 and leave the flag as is. >>>> >>>>This position is cute. Because not only is it a mate in 6, but there are >>>>transpositions that lead to mate in 7, mate in 8, and there are shorter (but >>>>non-forced) mates in 4 and 5. And there are stalemates, and positions with >>>>1 legal move, and so forth. >>>> >>>>You ought to find the following variation as one mate in 6: >>>> >>>>Kh3, f2, Kg2, Ke2, Kg3, f1=Q, Kh2, g5, hg, Kf3, g6, Qg2# >>>> >>>>If you find a shorter mate, it is wrong. If you find a longer mate, you >>>>are probably just extending like mad on checks (crafty finds a mate in 8 at >>>>shallow depths (9 plies, 2 secs on my PII/300 notebook), and doesn't find the >>>>mate in 6 until depth 10, 3 seconds. >>>> >>>>It is a good test as the transpositions are real cute with white's king caught >>>>in a tiny box, but with several different moves that triangulate and transpose >>>>into other variations... >>>> >>>>If you get it right, you have either handled the bounds right, or else you are >>>>very lucky. IE Crafty 16.17 gets this dead right. But if I disable the eval, >>>>it goes bananas, yet the eval is not important when mate is possible. >>>> >>>>Have fun... >>>> >>>>I did... :) >>> >>>A simple solution: do not store a position in the hash table if there is >>>no best-move. It solves the mate-cases and also repetition cases. Also >>>there is no speed loss of the search. >>> >>>Ed >> >>Do you mean by "no best-move" >> bestmove == 0 >>or >> best<=alpha, after having searched all moves (best: minimax score)? >> >>What I do: >> if bestmove == 0 then don't store anything, just return the score (mate or >> stalemate). >> >>Alessandro > > >that doesn't make sense to me. If _every_ move at one node in the tree returns >alpha for the score, which is the best move? And since you don't have one, you >don't store anything? That hurts performance, because the next time you >encounter this position, you get to search it again, while I discover that the >last time I searched it I returned alpha, so I can just do that now and not >search anything... No, no. My answer was misleading. What I mean is explained by the following code (the code is simpilied!). I have marked the important things by an "****". It is assumed that - when the king is removed from board its position is -1 ( < 0) - alpha, beta < INF Alessandro int AlphaBeta (int alpha, int beta, int depth) { //************************************** // legality check: if (myKingSquare<0) return -INF; //************************************** if (depth==0) return Quiescence(alpha,beta); // here use info from the transposition table best= -INF; bestmove= 0; startalpha= alpha; i= 0; n= GenMoves(); while (i!=n && best<beta) { // m[i] is the current move make(m[i]); value= -AlphaBeta(-beta,-alpha,depth-1); unmake(m[i]); if (value>best) { best= value; bestmove= m[i]; if (best>alpha) alpha= best; }; i++; }; //********************************************** // no best move => mate or stalemate if (bestmove==0) { if InCheck(Me) return -MATE+ply; return STALEMATE; }; //********************************************** // here update the transposition table return best; }
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.