Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:16:48 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 08:39:47, Nagendra Singh Tomar wrote: >Hi everybody! > >In my endeavour to understand the techniques of comp chess I am in the process >of understanding the benefits (what/why/how) of a zero window search. Told >superficially it can be said that since we have a very small window to search we >search less nodes, but I want to understand it to the minute details. > >What I observe and understand is follows. > >score = -alphabeta(board, -beta, -alpha, depth-1) <-- 1st call (full width) >. >. update alpha if score more than alpha >. >score = -alphabeta(board, -alpha-1, -alpha, depth-1) <-- subsequent calls > zero window > >Any saving whatsoever that can be achieved by reducing the window size, should >be because of beta cutoffs (fail-highs) increasing. Not quite. Because you are passing that null-window to the next ply, _all_ of this sub-tree will be searched with a null-window. This means that every search will either fail high or fail low, which is about as efficient as you can get. >Here we are keeping beta as -alpha (same as we would have kept it for a full >window search, though we have kept alpha as -alpha-1 in contrast to -beta for a >full win search) >But in the subsequent call (child nodes) this alpha (-alpha-1) will be negated >and passed as beta, which will be very less. Is the saving in nodes searched, >due to this beta being passed as a very small value in the child->child nodes >searched. >I know I have made it complex, but I hope you understand me. > >IOW changing the value of alpha cannot reduce the number of nodes searched. But >the fact that this alpha will be passed as beta in the subsequent call to >alphabeta, results in lot of beta cuts and hence reduced nodes searched. > Correct. > >Am I thinking on the right lines ? > >tomar
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.