Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:20:43 01/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 1998 at 12:34:26, Don Dailey wrote: >On January 08, 1998 at 11:48:22, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>On January 07, 1998 at 22:51:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>Bob, a while ago we had a short conversation about singular extensions. >> >>You said something like if a move is way better than the rest research >>that move till Depth+1. >> >>But what is the basic idea of singular extensions? Is it something like >>q-search but then not for captures but forcing moves? How could it lead >>to searching at greater depth *average* as was said of Deep Blue? >> >>Could you tell something more about this, about the general idea, not >>the implementation? (I'll be back for that later hopefully). >> >> >>Regards, >>Bas Hamstra. > > >Bas, > >Singular extensions is the concept of granting an extension if there >is only a SINGLE clearly best move. "clearly best" is defined by >some positional margin for instance 1/2 pawn. Determining singularity >is determined by a reduced depth search with zero window to prove or >disprove singularity. There are some implementation complications >you should be aware of too but this is the basic high level idea. > >- Don Note that the reduced depth trick is only used on "fail-high singular moves" and not PV-singular. IE you search a node and the first move would fail high. Are you *sure* it is way better than the others? If not, you have to somehow test this. And you can't do it with normal depth, or you turn the search into pure minimax. So for the fail-high nodes, you simply test the singularity with a reduced depth and accept the errors it produces...
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.