Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Doesn't appear to work for me (full data)

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 13:46:28 11/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 21, 2002 at 15:55:55, Uri Blass wrote:

>On November 21, 2002 at 09:10:32, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>On November 21, 2002 at 07:18:11, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On November 21, 2002 at 06:26:16, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>On November 21, 2002 at 06:25:17, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On November 21, 2002 at 04:52:13, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On November 20, 2002 at 22:05:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On November 20, 2002 at 16:55:41, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nullmove in Deep Sjeng uses an algorithm of my own, but I can
>>>>>>>>switch it back to other systems easily. I did so for running
>>>>>>>>a few tests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I made a version which uses Heinz Adaptive Nullmove Pruning
>>>>>>>>and a version which uses your verification nullmove.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This would seem to be a bit harder than at first glance.  They say that
>>>>>>>if the normal null-move search fails high, then do a D-1 regular search
>>>>>>>to verify that, but while in that verification search, no further
>>>>>>>verification searches are done, meaning that the normal null-move search
>>>>>>>fail-high is treated just like we do it today..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm going to experiment with this myself, just for fun, but it seems that you
>>>>>>>need to pass some sort of flag down thru the search calls indicating that
>>>>>>>you are either below a verification-search node or not so that recursive
>>>>>>>verification searches are not done...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exactly!! (finally someone read the article carefully)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See Figure 3 for detailed implementation (the flag you mentioned which is passed
>>>>>>down as a parameter for search(), is called 'verify' in the pseudo-code).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At first stage leave alone the zugzwang detection part (the piece of code at the
>>>>>>bottom of Figure 3). Due to instablilities, some programs might do a needless
>>>>>>re-search. First let the algorithm work fine in general, and then do the
>>>>>>zugwzang detection part.
>>>>>
>>>>>I let the algorithm to work without zugwzang detection and first results seems
>>>>>not to be good
>>>>>
>>>>>Some positions I get at the same depth and
>>>>>the only position so far in the gcp test suite that I got at smaller depth for
>>>>>tactical reasons is
>>>>>[D]5rk1/1r1qbnnp/R2p2p1/1p1Pp3/1Pp1P1N1/2P1B1NP/5QP1/5R1K w - - 0 1
>>>>>
>>>>>I am going to try it in 10 sedconds per move and get resulkts in half an hour.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>should be seconds,results,position
>>>>I type too fast.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>Here are the results of the new version:
>>>
>>>1     39     39
>>>2      9     48
>>>3      8     56
>>>4     11     67
>>>5      6     73
>>>6      6     79
>>>7      5     84
>>>8      4     88
>>>9      4     92
>>>10      2     94
>>>
>>>results of the old version seem better:
>>>
>>>1     40     40
>>>2     17     57
>>>3      8     65
>>>4      7     72
>>>5      6     78
>>>6      4     82
>>>7      8     90
>>>8      2     92
>>>9      3     95
>>>10      1     96
>>>
>>>Remember also that I tested the olf version at more than 10 seconds per move so
>>>if it changed it's mind after 20 seconds from the right move to the wrong move
>>>the position is counted as a failure.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>Did you use the exact implementation I described in Figure 3?
>>
>>BTW, you have to compare the algorithms at deeper searches. A fixed 10 ply depth
>>will be fine.
>
>Some notes:
>
>I do not the exact implementation in figure 3.
>Differences:
>
>1)I do not use null move pruning at depth=1 because I have other pruning and I
>did not change it.
>null move pruning is used by movei only when the depth is at least 2.
>
>2)I did use research so I have not varaible to tell me about fail high and after
>fail high, I trust the result of normal search(verify=false) with depth
>that is reduced by 1.
>
>3)I already tested it at 300 seconds per move(still without research) and I
>expect to have results tommorow.
>
>I am going to compare it with results of my previous version(null move pruning
>R=3)
>I use also other pruning ideas that I did not change.
>
>Uri

I'm afraid that all these differences might result in a totally different
structure. I strongly recommend you to try my exact implemenation first.



This page took 0.02 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.