Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Couple of chess programming questions

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 12:41:42 09/10/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 10, 2002 at 15:19:21, martin fierz wrote:

>On September 10, 2002 at 14:45:27, Omid David wrote:
>
>>On September 10, 2002 at 14:30:56, martin fierz wrote:
>>
>>>On September 10, 2002 at 09:26:14, Eli Liang wrote:
>>>
>>>>A couple of chess programming questions:
>>>hmm, i only wrote a checkers program, but here's my take:
>>>
>>>>(1) Are there any uses for ProbCut and/or Multi-ProbCut in chess positions where
>>>>the variance of leaf-nodes is low?
>>>
>>>i've tried multi-probcut and it works well in checkers. i never tuned it as much
>>>as my own pruning algorithm, and it doesn't perform quite as well - but it is BY
>>>FAR better than no pruning. i'll be trying to tune it in the near future. for
>>>games where the eval doesnt swing wildly, MPC is a fantastic algorithm.
>>>
>>>>(3) Reading Aske Plaat's search & re-search paper, it really seems like mtd(f)
>>>>is something of a magic bullet.  But I note it seems that more programs don't
>>>>use it than do (for example Crafty).  What is wrong with mtd(f) which Plaat
>>>>doesn't say?
>>>
>>>i'm using MTD. i tried windowed search, PVS and MTD. in my tests, in long engine
>>>matches, MTD performed marginally (no statistical significance...) better than
>>>PVS. it typically searched a low 1-digit % less nodes for a given depth than
>>>PVS.
>>>i don't know how to get a PV out of MTD. in normal searches, a pv node is where
>>>the value is > alpha but < beta. in MTD, you never get this condition.
>>>retrieving a PV from the hashtable is possible, but in all probability, you will
>>>not get the full PV. which is real bad for debugging if you want to know what
>>>the program was thinking at the time... i once asked here how to get a pv from
>>>MTD but got no answer - and if you can't get the pv, then that is a major
>>>drawback.
>>
>>I haven't tried getting the PV out of MTD(f), but just a thought: why should
>>there be any problem in getting the PV out of hash table? Play the first move,
>>update the position, get the next best move from hash table, and so on... ?!
>
>there's no problem with that except that on any reasonably deep search, you will
>not have been able to store all pv nodes in the hashtable. so you end up with a
>search which says it was 23 ply deep and have e.g. 15 pv moves. if you just want
>to display it for the user, that's fine. but if your program plays a bad move,

but then your hashtable management sucks ass, sorry to say so.

I get in Napoleon also only mainlines out of hashtable (with pvs)
wasting system time in the search to update all kind of stupid
arrays for it is a waste of time, and the next iteration you get
true bounds, so you can't get the mainline in arrays anyway (mtd
is different here). finding a win in 50 ply is no problem to display...



>and you want to know what line it was considering as being best, e.g. because
>you want to know if your static eval is bad in the final node of the pv, you
>can't do it. IMO debugging your program and finding eval problems like this is
>MUCH more important than something like 5% more speed.
>
>aloha
>  martin
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>(6) Has anyone found any real "practical" benefits to fractional-ply extensions?
>>>
>>>yes. i tried recapture extensions of different depth, and half a ply gave the
>>>best result. don't ask me why, it's just an observation.
>>>
>>>aloha
>>>  martin



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.