Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Unexpected problem with futility pruning ? Anymore opinions ?

Author: Antonio Dieguez

Date: 09:34:41 12/31/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 31, 2003 at 10:32:33, José Carlos wrote:

[]
>  Yes, but only in my latest versions. I couldn't quantify it because I've been
>changing many things in Averno lately, but it reduces the tree a little. Nothing
>impressive, however.
>  As I see it, futility pruning creates kind of a bridge between regular search
>and qsearch, like a selective part, but really too thin to make a difference.
>  I don't like the idea of extended futility as described by Heinz because it
>doesn't make sense to me. Let's think of it:
>  We are at depth 2 (to me, depth 0 calls qsearch directly, depth 1 tries all
>move with futility pruning) and we are about to make a move. Our material score
>is below alpha and this move won't raise the score above alpha-margin, being
>margin a constant which, for now, is not important. We know we will move and
>then force the opponent to make a move and well drop into qsearch. Then, it's me
>who will have the option to stand pat or try a capture, so being at depth 2, and
>assuming any move by the opponent won't worsen his position (this assumption we
>always make in null move), the only thing we have better than in depth 1 is that
>we'll be given the chance to stand pat.
> Since we assume the opponent won't
>worsen his position, we'll be given the option to stand pat in a bad position,
>so no advantage.

I suposse the chance to eat makes the difference, no? at depth 2 you could make
the preparation for the kill and in depth 0 the kill. That is the advantadge,
like pinning or attacking with other piece and may be also more subtle stuff.
There is something similar with prunning when >beta at depth 2 and 3, thinking
in "quiet" moves whe could think at depth 3 it is even safer, but tactically one
never knows what can happen!

the always very usefull

antonio d.

>  Under this point of view, I would try futility with the same margin at depths
>1 and 2, and then a bigger margin at 3 and 4, and so on.
>  But I haven't had time to test all of this. For now, I stay on the safe side
>and use a bigger margin at depth 2 and, so far, both futilities seem to save
>some nodes to me.
>
>  José C.



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.