Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Zero-width Window Null Move Search

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 10:44:09 06/19/98

Go up one level in this thread

>I would be very interested to know what
>were the features that Larry recommended for your preprocessor, and whether any
>of these things were later moved to the terminal evaluation to improve accuracy,
>albeit at the cost of some speed.

Pawn structure was not preprocessed because it is too important.  With
hashing techniques you can get good and  fast pawn structure anyway so
we chose to use this.  No matter what you do  there is a fight between
speed and knowledge.   Preprocessing  allows speed  while still  being
able to  have  a significant  amount  of knowledge.  This  is balanced
against the annoying problems it has with search context.

I created a language for Larry to write the preprocessor rules in.  It
allowed fairly natural descriptions of patterns and chess concepts.  I
had subroutines, variables and many other real language features in it
and Larry quickly was able to master it with  only a few examples from
me.  This was a wonderful tool because Larry could fix any problems he
saw  in the  positional play  without long  conversations  with me and
requiring   me to implement it and   download versions back and forth.
Back in those days modems were  about 1200 baud  I think and the whole
process was a   little tedious  and subject  to  error.  The  language
produced an intermediate type of "machine  code" which REX was able to
quickly process.

After getting used to a preprocessor you  find lot's of clever ways to
simulate various  pieces  of knowledge.  It's tricky  business because
you are  often anticipating things  that might happen and dealing with
them based on assumptions that may not be  true.  This is the same way
humans   do it too.    But  we covered   pretty  much  all  the "chess
fundamentals."  We  had lots  of endgame  stuff,  and preprocessing is
nice for  covering  patterns,   like  recognizing  a certain   type of
middlegame and  having a plan to  deal with it.  Specific endgames are
(usually) easy  to  cover too.   We  had lots   of  code for  specific
positioning of  pieces.   We had code  to encourage  rooks to pry open
files, get  pawns passed (but not to  recognize them, the dynamic pawn
structure  did that) and a lot  of nice king safety  stuff.  We knew a
few typical king  safety patterns.   We  encouraged pawn storms   when
kings were castled on opposite   wings and had several "plans"   built
into  the preprocessor  to deal  with lots of  awkward situations like
getting your rook into the game when it was on  h1 and the king was on
g1.  We had  a rule to recognize  that Bf1 was not  so bad if you were
castled and  your rook was  developed.  These little things eventually
would make a  lot of difference  in how  it played  because we covered
situations that actually occured in real games.

I am still sort of an advocate of preprocessing.  I think it should be
used  sparingly as programs get  faster and faster  but you can really
get a lot  of nice knowledge with  virtually zero cost.  Maybe someday
it will not make sense but I still think that is  still in the future.
For those that  advocate  a more human approach  to  computer chess  I
would argue that this is  a very human  algorithm.  We get most of our
ideas and plans from a direct consideration  of the starting position.
I also think that is a limitation of the  human approach but that is a
different post!  As it  stands now in my  opinion, a judicious mix  of
preprocessing and dynamic evaluation with more emphasis on the dynamic
might be the best  way to go.   I would like to  say this is  a highly
subjective opinion on my part and have no  wish to debate the point so
I  hope no one  flames me for  saying this.  It's  just a  guess on my

Having said all of this, I will now say that all my recent programs do
not make use of  the flexible preprocessor.  I am  still dreaming of a
way to get  all the benefits without  the drawbacks but  haven't found
this yet!

I  am looking through  some old diskettes looking  for the source code
for REX  and other older programs.   I am afraid  I may have lost this
stuff.  If I find it I will email the "rulebase" to  you.  It would be
fun to reimplement  it (I think it would  be easy  for a progammer  to
implement the code directly without  having to recreate the  language)
or simply  get some ideas  from it.  Larry   was a genius  at creating
these kind of  rules.  He had the  right combination of being a strong
chess programmer and having the ability to elucidate this knowledge.

- Don

This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.