Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:39:40 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 00:21:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >On July 07, 2002 at 23:53:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 07, 2002 at 23:42:03, Omid David wrote: >> >>>On July 07, 2002 at 21:43:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 07, 2002 at 16:47:33, Omid David wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 07, 2002 at 16:36:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 07, 2002 at 11:48:27, Omid David wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 06, 2002 at 23:23:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 06, 2002 at 22:29:44, Omid David wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 06, 2002 at 10:20:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On July 06, 2002 at 01:07:36, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Okay, but so what? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>So perhaps the idea of "forward pruning" is foreign to us as well... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I see no logical difference between deciding which moves are interesting and >>>>>>>>>>>worth looking at and deciding which moves are not interesting and not worth >>>>>>>>>>>looking at. It looks to me like 2 sides of the same coin, so your speculation >>>>>>>>>>>that "perhaps the idea of "forward pruning" is foreign to us as well..." does >>>>>>>>>>>not seem to be of any consequence. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>However, that has been _the point_ of this entire thread: Is DB's search >>>>>>>>>>inferior because it does lots of extensions, but no forward pruning. I >>>>>>>>>>simply said "no, the two can be 100% equivalent". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Just a quick point: The last winner of WCCC which *didn't* use forward pruning >>>>>>>>>was Deep Thought in 1989. Since then, forward pruning programs won all WCCC >>>>>>>>>championships... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In 1992 no "supercomputer" played. In 1995 deep thought had bad luck and lost >>>>>>>>a game it probably wouldn't have lost had it been replayed 20 times. No >>>>>>>>"supercomputer" (those are the programs that likely relied more on extensions >>>>>>>>than on forward pruning due to the hardware horsepower they had) has played >>>>>>>>since 1995... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I'm not sure that means a lot, however. IE I don't think that in 1995 fritz >>>>>>>>was a wild forward pruner either unless you include null move. Then you >>>>>>>>would have to include a bunch of supercomputer programs including Cray Blitz >>>>>>>>as almost all of us used null-move... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I personally consider null-move pruning a form of forward pruning, at least with >>>>>>>R > 1. I believe Cray Blitz used R = 1 at that time, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe that at that point (1989) everybody was using null-move with R=1. >>>>>>It is certainly a form of forward pruning, by effect. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, and today most programs use at least R=2... The fact is that new ideas in >>>>>null-move pruning didn't cause this change of attitude, just programmers >>>>>accepted taking more risks! >>>> >>>> >>>>I think it is more hardware related. Murray Campbell mentioned R=2 in the >>>>first null-move paper I ever read. He tested with R=1, but mentioned that >>>>R=2 "needs to be tested". I think R=2 at 1980's speeds would absolutely >>>>kill micros. It might even kill some supercomputers. Once the raw depth >>>>with R=2 hits 11-12 plies minimum, the errors begin to disappear and it starts >>>>to play reasonably. But at 5-6-7 plies, forget about it. >>> >>>So using a fixed R=3 seems to be possible in near future with faster hardware, >>>doesn't it? >> >> >>Very possibly. Or perhaps going from 2~3 as I do now to 3~4 or even 4~5 for >>all I know... I should say that going from 2 to 3 is not a huge change. Bruce >>and I ran a match a few years ago with him using Ferret vs Crafty with Ferret >>using pure R=2, and then pure R=3. We didn't notice any particular difference >>at that time. It played about the same, searched about the same depth, etc... > > >Increasing R is pointless after 3. > >Because instead of having a null move search using 5% of your time (just an >example, I do not know the exact value), it will use only 2% or 3%. > >The speed increase is ridiculous, and the risks are getting huge. > >The only thing you can get by increasing R after that is having a percentage of >search spent in null move close to 0. So a potential of 2% or 3% increase in >speed. > >And an big potential to overlook easy combinations everywhere in the tree. > >That's why I believe that working on R>3 is a waste of time. > > > Christophe You are overlooking _the_ point here. At present, doing 12-14 ply searches, R>3 doesn't make a lot of difference. But in the future, when doing (say) 18 ply searches, R=4 will offer a lot more in terms of performance. Same as R=3 did when we got to 12-14 plies... _then_ it might make sense to up R once again.
This page took 0.01 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.