Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: limited razoring question

Author: Ernst A. Heinz

Date: 11:01:16 10/04/98

Go up one level in this thread


On October 04, 1998 at 13:33:30, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>It is certainly years ago I worked on the ideas you brought up here so
>I don't know all the details anymore however I will give it my best shot.

Ed,

First of all -- thank you very much for the detailed and informative answer.
I greatly appreciate that you are willing to share some internals of
"Rebel" with us!

>First you have to understand Rebel is no "null-move" program (and probably)
>never will be so "selective search" is done in a total different way as these
>days is common using "null move".

Yes, I know because you have already mentioned this before.

>Rebel's selective search basically is the "static score" coming from the
>standard evaluation function which is compared to ALPHA first. Next
>a lot of exceptions (say chess knowledge) are checked. Based on all
>the information the selective search decides to a complete prune (the
>very bad ones) or to reduce the depth with 2 plies (the bad ones) or
>to reduce the depth with 1 ply (bad, but give it a try anyway) or leave
>the depth unchanged (good moves).

Okay, so "Rebel" (at least up to version 9, I guess) is still a purely
statically selective searcher in the old tradition of Shannon-Type B.

>In the selective part I have tried the ideas you mention on the last 2-3
>plies and even on all plies of the selective search. It speed-up Rebel
>tremendously in the sense of a much higher iteration depth but I always
>had bad feelings about the algorithm (loss of positional understanding)
>which later was confirmed by the results I got from auto232. And - / -
>means drop the idea.
>
>The idea still has my attention, after all these are the days of Pc's on
>450 Mhz and my last tries are from the ChessMachine 16 Mhz days
>if memory serves me well.

In my opinion, this explains much ... :-)

My experimental results show that these statically selective forward-pruning
techniques require minimum search depths of 9-10 plies in order to really
take off in a state-of-the-art null-move searcher. At shallower depths (which
you probably encountered on the 16MHz "ChessMachine") this kind of pruning is
actually quite risky -- I would probably disable it in blitz games. Moreover,
my limited and risk-assessed pruning at depths of 2 and 3 plies might surely
combine better with null-move pruning than with a purely statically selective
search as that of "Rebel".

=Ernst=



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.