Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Prinicipal Variation Search

Author: Dieter Buerssner

Date: 16:50:59 08/07/03

Go up one level in this thread


On August 07, 2003 at 19:36:45, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

>I think due to the search instability, the best thing is to use the full window
>upon re-search, i.e., in the example above:
>
>if (value > alpha && value < beta)
>    best = -PrincipalVariation(pos, depth-1, -beta, -alpha);
>                                              /*     ^^^^^^  */

Yes and no. I do it, as you suggested. My comments were to a plain alpha-beta
search (no pruning, extensions, qsearch). The "PV-updating-problem" exists
already under those conditions, however.

But it is discussable, which is better (using -alpha or -value+1) as bound in
the research. The first seems more logical at first sight (taking into
consideration the search instabilities, you mentioned). I have tried both, and
did not see much difference. I debugged very large search trees. There are some
subtle points (for example, do you trust hash bounds and adjust bounds in
subnodes, and more). I am not sure anymore, and tend to think, it is not worse
to trust the first search. After all it said, the score is >= value. Why should
we trust the research more (that, with your method could now say, hmmm, it is
really smaller value, when I look again)? I think, this is no easy to answer
question.

I have the feeling, that commercial engines trust their older searches more,
than amateur engines (including mine).

>Another thing I find interesting is the two different implementations of PVS:
>
>I) Use full window for the first child, and minimal window (alpha, alpha + 1) in
>all other childs (like the pseudo-code above. This is the PVS version used in
>Crafty).
>
>II) Use full window for all childs until you find a PV, then use minimal window
>for all other childs (see Bruce Moreland's pseudo-code).

And even more variations are possible. One can try to guess, whether we await a
fail high in the next node or a fail low (most nodes will not be exact). And
dependent on the guess switch between I and II. I tried a bit, and nothing
spectacularily found (not surprising).

Regards,
Dieter



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.