Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: crafty and mate threats question

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 07:40:29 01/26/04

Go up one level in this thread


On January 26, 2004 at 06:13:10, Tord Romstad wrote:

>On January 25, 2004 at 17:55:13, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On January 25, 2004 at 13:58:24, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>I see in Crafty's code that Crafty extends mate threats but how can it know
>>>usually about mate threats when it is using fail hard and not fail soft?
>>>
>>>I do not see in crafty's code a special search after null move(even to reduced
>>>depth) in order to find if there is a mate threat.
>>
>>This is done _in_ the null-move search.  It simply says "If I do nothing (play a
>>null-move) and my opponent mates me instantly, then this position has a threat
>>and should be searched deeper...
>>
>>I detect the threat when doing the null-move score and getting a mate score
>>backed
>>up.  Crafty is not really "fail hard".  It just is not fail-soft...
>
>I think you didn't quite understand Uri's question.  I also don't understand
>how you can use the null-move search to detect mate threats.  Let me try
>to explain why:
>
>After making the null move and calling search(), I don't necessarily search
>all moves.  I stop searching as soon as I find a move which fails high
>(just like in all other nodes of the tree, of course).  It is obviously
>possible that there exists a mate-in-one in the position, but this mate
>might not be found because the mating move is not searched first and one
>of the earlier moves fails high.  What am I missing?
>
>Instead of using the null-move search to find mate threats, I try to
>detect them in the evaluation function.  This is very cheap and works
>reasonably well, but it's not perfect.  It happens that a mate threat
>is not found, and it happens (not often) that the evaluation function
>detects a mate threat which isn't there.
>
>While writing this post, I got an idea which perhaps could work.
>Before the ordinary null-move search, do a null-move search with the
>depth reduced to zero (or one, if you don't search checks in the qsearch),
>and beta lowered to -MATE_VALUE+Ply+2.  This search should terminate
>very quickly, and should also reliably detect all threats of mate in
>one.  If a mate is found, you extend and disable the ordinary null move
>search.

From my experience ( wich is the same with singular extensions ) it's not the
detecting that will burn nodes, it's the extending that will.

Tony

>
>Tord



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.