Author: Tony Werten
Date: 20:33:39 11/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2002 at 23:14:52, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On November 23, 2002 at 22:25:02, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On November 23, 2002 at 22:14:27, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On November 23, 2002 at 21:50:01, Tony Werten wrote: >>> >>>>On November 23, 2002 at 21:24:08, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 23, 2002 at 21:09:36, Tony Werten wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 23, 2002 at 20:52:01, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 23, 2002 at 20:00:15, Tony Werten wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On November 23, 2002 at 11:11:16, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On November 23, 2002 at 09:22:37, jefkaan wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>oops, wasn't finished yet.. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>are done by using the results of the positional eval >>>>>>>>>>>to prune the q-search, >>>>>>>>>>and there using only material eval >>>>>>>>>> (haven't tried it out yet, and wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>know how to do it, but it's only an idea, >>>>>>>>>>you know.. to explore options of >>>>>>>>>>more effective branch factor reducements >>>>>>>>>>and efficient programming (besides >>>>>>>>>>lousy solutions as inline assembler >>>>>>>>>>and bitboards.. >>>>>>>>>>:) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yes Chess Tiger does much more pruning than known (published) techniques. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I think other top programs do it also. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I still fail to see why the efficiency of an algorithm depends on what your >>>>>>>>>QSearch does. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If your pruning algorithm is good, it will increase the strength of the program >>>>>>>>>regardless on how good your QSearch is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If your QSearch is smart, then it will increase the strength even more. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I don't like the idea that some algorithms that have almost nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>each other would have such an influence on each other. It is indeed possible and >>>>>>>>>it probably happens all the time, but it's hard to work with such hypothesis in >>>>>>>>>mind. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I think it's better to first assume that the kind of QSearch you do will not >>>>>>>>>interfere with the quality of the pruning algorithm used before the QSearch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If your QSearch sucks, it's not because you are doing a lot of pruning in the >>>>>>>>>"full width" part of the search. It's because it sucks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The paper does prove that the more your (q)search sucks, the better your pruning >>>>>>>>algoritm seems. But that's not really news. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Does it prove that?! No, it's just my impression based on the data gathered so >>>>>>>far. Maybe a reduction of 2 (instead of 1) in case of fail-high report, will >>>>>>>work better in programs with heavy extensions and quiescence. >>>>>> >>>>>>A reduction of 20% seems to be working best in XiniX ( heavy qsearch). >>>>> >>>>>What do you mean by 20%? (you used a reduction of 1 or 2 in case of fail-high >>>>>report?) >>>> >>>>In case of a fail high I reduce the depth with 20%. ( doesn't work in your silly >>>>program :) >>>> >>> >>>Anyway, no matter what the reduction is, you are using verified null-move >>>pruning, which is good :-) In my paper I just gave a new null-move pruning >>>framework; feel free to play with the values that best fit your program. >> >>It's a no brainer to implement. If it's not bad then it's worth investigating. >> >>> >>>Even better values do exist. I've been working on them for some time and will >>>publish them in near future. >> >>If I might give an advice. For first reviews, send them it to some active >>chessprogrammers, and not to academic has beens. It will save you a lot of >>typework. ( you have been quite active on this forum lately ) >> > >I will. However, after posting a new method, several days of "heavy presence" >will always be needed to clear things up and answer the questions... Yes, that's good. I just think that sending your algoritm to Robert (I think we were using this in 74 ), Gian Carlo ( Can't work, just implemented it in 3 seconds ) and me ( didn't crash my program, must be a good idea ) would have given you some "real" input. Tony > > >>BTW last time we mailed I concluded your last name was David, were does the >>Tabibi come from ? >> > >My full name has always been Omid David Tabibi. But I usually use just David as >my last name in informal occasions. After ICGA put my name as "O.D. Tabibi" on >their cover, I thought it would be a good idea to use my full name here to avoid >confusion. > > >>Tony >> >>> >>> >>>>In XiniX I have partial extensions (PLY is 32). >>>>The addition to your idea is to give big reductions when there is still a lot of >>>>searchdepth remaining. So fe when there is 12 ply left I give more reduction >>>>than when there's 6 ply left (with a minimum of 1 ply ) That's 6*0,2 is 1,2 ply >>>>more. For XiniX that seems to make the difference between a good and a bad new >>>>idea. >>>> >>>>Tony >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I'm >>>>>>interessed in your idea. It's commented out in my program now, but not deleted. >>>>>>I still have to play with it some more. >>>>>> >>>>>>Despite of the negative comments you had, I don't think it's a bad idea. I'm >>>>>>just not convinced yet it's a good one. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It took me several months of experiments to get convinced. After a little more >>>>>tuning and playing with different reduction values (1 or 2), I believe you will >>>>>be convinced too ;-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Tony >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Tony >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Christophe
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.