Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:02:57 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 16:30:25, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On December 19, 2002 at 11:24:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>1) When the null-move search comes back with fail high, and verify is true, I >>>will do a regular search with reduced depth. If this search fails high, I cut >>>off like normal. If this search does not fail high, I have to re-search with >>>the original depth. What I don't understand is what I do if the initial reduced >>>depth search modified alpha. I am assuming that I put alpha back the way it was >>>and start over. >> >>That is how I did it, yes.. >> >> >>> >>>2) I don't know if this implementation allows two consecutive null moves or >>>what. In specific, I don't know what "null_ok()" does. I am assuming that if I >>>don't allow two null moves in a row already, I can continue to not allow two >>>null moves in a row. >> >> >>I did it just like my normal program. No consecutive null-move searches, and >>I did continue to use the "avoid-null" hash table trick as well. >> >> >> >>> >>>3) I am assuming that if the search cuts off when doing the reduced depth >>>searches, that the depth record in the hash table should be the original depth, >>>and not the reduced depth. >> >>That is what I did, although it seems that it might be a problematic >>assumption that I didn't give much thought to since the code already worked >>that way normally... > >I think you are thinking about a different area. In Omid's pseudo-code, he >takes the main "depth" variable and decrements it. > >If he's off doing a search, and fails high, he has to record hash for this node >and cut off. > >The depth value has been decremented, so unless he puts it back, he's going to >store a "9" in the hash table even though he entered this node with a "10". > >In my implementation I never decrement depth, so I don't have this problem. >What I do instead is remember that I'm in this state, so rather than passing >"depth - 1" to the recursed search function, I pass "depth - 2". > That is how I do it as well. But it seems "wrong" in a way. You are not _really_ doing a depth-1 search,you are doing a depth-2, but you are storing it without regard to the fact that the result came back from a shallower depth than a normal search from this position. Which is what I do, and it seems like it could be problematic... >Omid suggested that I remove the re-search idea since it is a zugzwang >optimization. I tried that and performance was almost identical to R=3, which >in Gerbil's case is not better than R=2. > >I'm going to continue tweaking with this, but for now I have some related ideas >testing in Ferret. > >bruce I don't like the re-search anyway. Run it on fine 70 and you will get to 40+ plies instantly and not realize Kb2 is drawing. As I reported right after the paper came out, it clearly misses many zugzwang problems...
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.