Author: Joshua Haglund
Date: 20:39:02 03/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2004 at 14:14:33, David Mitchell wrote: >On February 29, 2004 at 16:29:15, Joshua Haglund wrote: > >>On February 29, 2004 at 12:48:06, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 29, 2004 at 12:20:03, Joshua Haglund wrote: >>> >>>>On February 29, 2004 at 03:20:30, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>My engine has a very unstable and unreliable search. >>>>>Sometimes I think I implemented what you are proposing. >>>>>My opinion is that the blindness introduced by such tricks would really hurt. >>>>> >>>>>/Matthias. >>>> >>>>yes! it wouldn't do the best search if it didn't reach great depth where f = 3; >>>>If your engine searches deep try ply > 12. If it doesn't try ply 8, etc... :) >>>> >>>> >>>>I have reason to believe a person will gain atleast 1 ply in the same amount of >>>>searched time. >>>> >>>>example >>>>time = 30; >>>>ply 7 = 4 seconds. >>>>ply 8 = 13 >>>>no more plies reached. >>>> >>>>// with idea. >>>>time = 30; >>>>ply 7 = 1 second >>>>ply 8 = 5 >>>>ply 9 = 20 seconds >>>> >>>>Maybe this would be good for long time controls? Skip shallow and go to deeper >>>>lines. >>>> >>>>Thanks for your reply, >>>> >>>>Joshua Haglund >>> >>>I can only say that I do not understand your idea. >>> >>>If you suggest to do selective search in the first plies then it seems to me a >>>bad idea because you may miss important moves. >>> >>>It is more logical to be selective in the last plies and programs do it for >>>example by qsearch but even then I do not see why do you use fixed number of >>>moves and the number of moves that you search should be dependent on the >>>position. >>> >>>prunning illogical moves is something important to do and programmers know it >>>so it is not new information. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I thought about doing a selective search also... pretty much the same thing. >> >>If you skip time wasted looking at first several plies, it'll get to a greater >>depth in less time to look for good moves. >> >>Thanks for your reply, >> >>Joshua Haglund > >Joshua, your idea is a great way to get deep, and very fast. > >Unfortunately, the well you are digging will not have any water in it, no matter >how deep, or how fast, you dig down. :) > >You can't throw out several shallow moves, and go onto the deeper parts >remaining, and have success with Alpha beta. Every shallow move you throw away >has it's _own_ deeper moves, which may lead to the best positions available. > >You will _never_ recover from that loss by simply going deeper with the >remaining moves into the search tree. > >In a game like Tic-Tac-Toe, you can do that, sometimes. In chess, you can't >recover. Try it and you'll see for yourself. > >dave Hi Dave, I haven't had much success than a couple of "wins". On the other hand I do have success with searching deeper a ply or two. Thank you for your reply, Joshua Haglund
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.