Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:20:39 11/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2002 at 02:48:29, scott farrell wrote: >On November 30, 2002 at 01:37:01, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 29, 2002 at 22:34:40, scott farrell wrote: >> >>>On November 29, 2002 at 21:12:55, Scott Gasch wrote: >>> >>>>On November 29, 2002 at 17:22:20, Will Singleton wrote: >>>> >>>>>2rr3k/1p4p1/1P2b2p/p1Bnpp1q/8/Q1P2PP1/P6P/RB3RK1 b - - 0 26 >>>>> >>>>>Solution times (amd 1.6ghz): >>>>> >>>>>Yace not in 5 min >>>>>Crafty not in 5 min >>>>>Aristarch 3:48 min >>>>>Gromit 3:12 min >>>>>Ruffian 44 sec >>>>>CM9000 5 sec >>>>> >>>> >>>>Monsoon fails high in 2:16 and resolves a PV in 4:27. >>>> >>>> 1u +0.35 00:00:00.02 11 PV= a4 <+0.00> >>>> 1u +1.35 00:00:00.05 57 PV= Nf4 <+0.00> >>>> 1. +1.35 00:00:00.08 77 PV= Nf4 <+0.00> >>>> 2- +0.57 00:00:00.13 190 **FL** -- >>>> 2u -0.47 00:00:00.14 302 PV= Ra8 1. Bd3 <+0.00> >>>> 2u -0.36 00:00:00.15 380 PV= Rc6 1. Qxa5 <-1.00> >>>> 2u -0.10 00:00:00.16 448 PV= Nf6 1. Qxa5 <-1.00> >>>> 2. -0.10 00:00:00.21 508 PV= Nf6 1. Qxa5 <-1.00> >>>> 3. +0.59 00:00:00.27 1635 PV= Nf6 1. Qxa5 e4 <-1.00> >>>> 4u +0.64 00:00:00.31 6748 PV= Rc6 1. Bd3 Nxb6 2. Bxb6 Rxb6 [Q] >>>> > 3. Qxa5 [Q] <+0.00> >>>> 4. +0.64 00:00:00.38 9055 PV= Rc6 1. Bd3 Nxb6 2. Bxb6 Rxb6 [Q] >>>> > 3. Qxa5 [Q] <+0.00> >>>> 5+ +1.40 00:00:00.47 22433 Nf6! ++ >>>> 5. +1.49 00:00:00.63 42341 PV= Nf6 1. Bd6 Bc4 2. Re1 Qxf3 3. Bxe5 >>>> > [Q] <+0.00> >>>> 6. +1.52 00:00:00.93 90963 PV= Nf6 1. Bd6 e4 2. fxe4 fxe4 3. Bc2 >>>> > <+0.00> >>>> 7. +1.77 00:00:01.49 209895 PV= Nf6 1. Bc2 Rd2 2. Rf2 Rxf2 3. Bxf2 >>>> > Qxf3 4. Qxa5 [Q] <+0.00> >>>> 8. +1.77 00:00:03.82 698640 PV= Nf6 1. Bc2 Rd2 2. Rf2 Rxf2 3. Bxf2 >>>> > Qxf3 4. Qxa5 <+0.00> >>>> 9+ +2.52 00:00:05.36 994464 Nf6! ++ >>>> 9. +2.71 00:00:08.69 1812429 PV= Nf6 1. Bd6 Bc4 2. Rf2 e4 3. g4 Nxg4 >>>> > 4. fxg4 Qxg4+ [+] 5. Bg3 Rd1+ >>>> > [Q] 6. Kg2 [Q] <-1.00> >>>>10. +3.02 00:00:26.78 5824368 PV= Nf6 1. Bd6 Bc4 2. Rf2 e4 3. Bc2 >>>> > e3 4. Rg2 Qxf3 5. Re1 <+1.00> >>>>11+ +3.77 00:02:16.62 28726569 Nf4! ++ >>>>11. +5.19 00:04:27.40 58248289 PV= Nf4 1. gxf4 Rd2 2. Bf2 [threat] >>>> > Qxf3 3. Qxa5 Bd5 4. Qxd5 [threat] >>>> > Qxd5 5. Bxf5 Rf8 6. c4 Qxc4 [Q] >>>> > <+3.00> >>> >>>How do you guys get this sort of output? >> >>I also do not understand it. >> >>Monson finished depth 10 with Nf6 in the pv but I do not see pv for Nf6 at depth >>11. >> >I think they must be doing something like, start depth 11 with a window of say >3.5 to 3.6. This "fails-high" where any one branch can prove it can do atleast >as good at 3.6 using soft alpha/better bound, or they actually used say >3.5-3.77. Assuming that fail-low are real fast, and the search ussually fails >low, then they ussually dont waste much time. I report fail-low at the root, to >see this sort of this, using -INFINITY to INFINITY, you dont get fail low at the >root. So after the fail-high, they know atleast one move is dramatically better, >but not exatly how much better, or if there is also another real good move which >is better. When they re-search, they search with say 3.77-INFINITY. > >My hashtable/hash alorithm doesn't have data/smarts to do window searches like >this. What extra info do I need, I current store the type of bound (a/b/exact), >and the score, and do Robert H's fail low/fail hi routine if enough depth. > >>Does it start analyzing Nf4 and not Nf6 at depth 11? >>> >>>My engine doesnt report the final move Nf4 until it has fully analysed that >>>move, and hence already has the PV. >> >>I do not understand. >> >>Do you use normal alpha beta? >> >>I try to find if other moves are better than the best move that I found. >>For that purpose I use a window of 0.01 pawns. >> >>If they are better I have a fail high and increase the size of the window from >>0.01 pawns to something bigger than 0.01 pawns. >> >We are saying the same thing, I use PVS, but have to have fully searched a move >at each ply first. They did something smarter than us. Or are you saying 0.01 >pawns from previous iteration, say from ply 10 in this example. I doubt if they did something smarter than us. If you know that there is going to be fail high then it may be better to do what they did but in games you do not know it and in most of the cases you are going to waste time for nothing if you start by investigating if something is clearly better. It may be a good idea to do in part of the cases when you suspect that a move is going to fail high but I do not know if they do it only in part of the cases. Uri
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.