Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: No Qsearch?

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 00:45:23 08/27/03

Go up one level in this thread


On August 27, 2003 at 00:38:05, Christophe Theron wrote:

>On August 26, 2003 at 21:02:37, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>
>>On August 26, 2003 at 19:34:59, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>>
>>>On August 26, 2003 at 19:25:39, Steve Maughan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ricardo,
>>>>
>>>>>"For example I have never used capture searches and rely instead on a static
>>>>>swap off routine."
>>>>>
>>>>>This seems to indicate that CG does not employ a qsearch. I also understand
>>>>>that Junior does something similar. I wonder how this is done? I would
>>>>>presume some type of accuracy tradeoff must be involved, but I wonder what?
>>>>>I'm very curious about how this is all done and why doesn't everybody do it
>>>>>this way?
>>>>
>>>>I guess it's either some sort of SEE or a routine to resolve the effect of
>>>>attack tables.
>>>>
>>>>>How is all the effort that goes into creating a good eval compatible with
>>>>>such a handling of non-quiescent positions? It just seems kind of wacky to me.
>>>>
>>>>It's different - and it clearly did work well in the 80s and 90s.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Steve
>>>
>>>It's working pretty well right now in Junior too.
>>>
>>>I haven't been able to find anything on this using google or citeseer. I guess
>>>how to make this work is being kept secret? It would be nice if RL could be
>>>persuaded to reveal this.
>>
>>I don't think this is any secret. I remember reading a BYTE (?) article about
>>the exchange evaluator in early versions of Sargon which they said they used
>>instead of a quiescence search because micros weren't fast enough for the
>>latter. If that was the case for Sargon, I imagine it was also the case for any
>>other program from that era, including predecessors of Fritz, WChess, Genius,
>>and Rebel.
>
>
>
>One of the first thing you come up when you start to think about a chess program
>is a way to "terminate" the search for the sake of simplicity, or in other words
>you want to "evaluate" the leaf positions and to include in this evaluation the
>exchange that can happen from here.
>
>You want to do - for example - a three plies search and do not want to go any
>deeper. So you want a SEE to apply to all the positions three plies deep.
>
>When you actually write a chess program and experiment more, you realize - and
>this is counter intuitive - that it is possible to search the tree of all the
>captures at the point where you normally would like to call your SEE, and that
>it is only marginally more expensive while being more reliable. Chess and Sargon
>(from version II and on) are exemple of successful programs that have used this
>method (full QSearch).
>
>After a number of years thinking about it and experimenting with it, I believe
>that it is possible to achieve even better results by sometimes doing a full
>QSearch and sometimes just calling the SEE.
>
>That's what I do in Chess Tiger.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Right now there are programs (e.g., HIARCS) with eval terms for en prise pieces
>>which isn't that much of a leap.
>>
>>Another thing is that Genius was very selective, so it may have run its eval
>>function on positions that it considered quiescent through some other means. In
>>practice not much different from a Q search.
>>
>>There may be a trade-off with accracy, but really, the accuracy of Q searches is
>>shit anyway. It may be BETTER to evaluate things as they are than figure that a
>>brain-dead sequence of captures may occur. I've been working on ways to keep my
>>program from returning (inaccurate) evaluations from positions that are very
>>active (e.g., hanging pieces all over) but the Q search decides are legitimate
>>stopping points. Eliminating the Q search doesn't seem like a bad idea at all.
>
>
>
>Maybe using a SEE when you know that doing a full QSearch is going to be
>expensive, doing a full QSearch when you know that the SEE is not going to
>return a reliable result...?

Hmm, I would guess that they positions where SEE isn't going to be accurate are
the expensive ones ....


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.