Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: MODERATION

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 19:27:26 07/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


On July 20, 2002 at 16:21:10, Christophe Theron wrote:

>On July 20, 2002 at 16:02:54, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>
>>On July 20, 2002 at 15:37:00, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>
>>>On July 19, 2002 at 23:12:28, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 23:08:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 22:15:31, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 21:43:40, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 15:50:44, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 15:25:48, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2002 at 12:14:10, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On July 18, 2002 at 05:58:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On July 17, 2002 at 13:18:40, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 16, 2002 at 11:01:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 15, 2002 at 13:11:09, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 15, 2002 at 08:37:34, Omid David wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't think using double null-move is a good idea in practice, since in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>midgame the chance of zugzwang is negligible and thus it's superfluous (I doubt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if even DIEP uses it). However the contribution of double null-move is that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gives legitimacy to the null-move pruning idea, proving that it _is_ a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>search method (anyway, no one doubts null-move nowadays).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why does double null move prove that null move is a correct search method????
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Doing two null moves in a row means going back to standard search (a search not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>involving an illegal move like null move is).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I fail to see how it legitimates null move.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Double nullmove legitimates (duh can't you use easier to spell words)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>itself, for the obvious reason that it is provable now that a search
>>>>>>>>>>>>>depth of n ply, where i may pick n, is going to solve any problem you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>give it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>OK, I see now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>However, it is not true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Due to a nasty interaction with the hash table algorithms, just allowing 2 null
>>>>>>>>>>>>moves in a row will NOT solve any problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What you refer to is a practical impossibility (assuming you have
>>>>>>>>>>>a efficient search) :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  your assumption is that from a root position r
>>>>>>>>>>>  with transition of some moves to position p, side stm to move and
>>>>>>>>>>>  depthleft=d:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  r ==> p(stm,d)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  that you visit this position with properties that
>>>>>>>>>>>  before this move you have made 1 nullmove or less.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  so ==> r , nullmove , p
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  Now a major problem for such an event to occur is that
>>>>>>>>>>>  after 1 nullmove, sides change the side to move.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Why is this a problem?  IE in my case, position P reached thru a path
>>>>>>>>>>with a null-move and position P reached thru a path without null-move
>>>>>>>>>>are _unique_ positions...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If so, your programs loses a lot of opportunities to prune because it detects
>>>>>>>>>less transpositions. But maybe it avoids some problems and is benefical in the
>>>>>>>>>end, I do not know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How much do programs earn by pruning based on hash tables?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Today I do not use hash tables to prune the tree.
>>>>>>>>I am interested to know how much rating programs earn from
>>>>>>>>using hash tables to prune the tree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1)Did someone do the experiment of comparing the rating of
>>>>>>>>a chess program when hash tables are used only for things like order
>>>>>>>>of moves and the rating of the same program when hash tables are used also for
>>>>>>>>also to prune the tree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2)How much speed improvement do programs get in middle game
>>>>>>>>from pruning based on hash tables?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Try position fine 70 with and without.  Without you might get to depth 15
>>>>>>>or so.  With it you can reach depth 40.  A _significant_ gain...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're trying to drive Uri crazy aren't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Did you really think Uri could not think of an example of a position where
>>>>>>having hash tables makes a significant difference?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you really think being able to search a position like Fine 70 to a depth of
>>>>>>40 instead of 15 will make a difference in a programs playing strength?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't you realize people are liable to react to such a reply as yours above as a
>>>>>>troll?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please try to be a bit more thoughtful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There was _no_ troll involved.  Point by point.
>>>>>
>>>>>fine 70 _is_ an important hash test. It represents a near-best-case for
>>>>>hashing.  Which is the best you can do.  It increases the search depth by
>>>>>at least a factor of 3x in terms of plies searched.
>>>>>
>>>>>Will that help the program?  Clearly in king and pawn endings I see 20+ ply
>>>>>searches _all_ the time.  And _that_ definitely helps for those positions where
>>>>>K+P endings are reached.
>>>>>
>>>>>But if you want to take a middlegame position, hashing is worth at least a
>>>>>factor of 2x based on tests I have run in the past.  I can always run them
>>>>>again.
>>>>>
>>>>>So to summarize, fine 70 was and is legitimate.  It _clearly_ shows that
>>>>>hashing makes a significant difference.  I hardly see why _your_ post wouldn't
>>>>>be considered a "troll" in fact.  As it attacks a legitimate point in a
>>>>>utterly simplistic and wrong context...
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps you should follow your own advice and try to be more thoughtful.
>>>>>_prior_ to posting???
>>>>
>>>>I did. You didn't...again.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bob's post (the one you originally responded to) was perfectly fine. He just
>>>gave a meaningful information.
>>>
>>>Your posts are really borderline. I really fail to see what is the problem with
>>>Bob's post.
>>>
>>>Please don't start a war here. There is really no point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    Christophe
>>
>>I'm perplexed as to why you would take RHs side in this. My post was pretty mild
>>compared to some of the others that get posted here without rebuke from a
>>moderator including some of your own posts. I can only conclude that it is due
>>to RH's status in this forum. So be it. I will make no further posts in this
>>thread.
>
>
>
>No it's just that I see that this is going to degenerate pretty quickly into
>name-calling due to Bob's nature and your -in my opinion- unjustified comment.
>
>Yes your comment was mild, but it was not justified (again, in my opinion). I
>know Bob is going to react very harshly, and before he does I prefer to ask the
>one who was wrong (you, in my opinion) to reconsider.
>
>If I don't act immediately I will have to moderate Bob, and I'm not sure what is
>going to happen then. :)
>
>
>
>    Christophe


Doesn't bother me at all to be moderated, as a general rule.  I've said all I
intend to say anyway.  No idea why he reacted as he did.  No idea how he missed
the point I tried to make.  But it isn't that important.  The rest seemed to
"get it" ok..



This page took 0.05 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.