Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: SEEing it is BLIND

Author: Tord Romstad

Date: 06:32:46 08/09/04

Go up one level in this thread


On August 09, 2004 at 07:39:21, David B Weller wrote:

>On August 08, 2004 at 04:35:54, Tord Romstad wrote:
>

>>3. Mate threats.  These can be detected statically, or by using the return
>>value of a null move search.  Extend if the null move search returns
>>-MATE_VALUE+Ply+2.
>
>Question/Comment: *Some* experiments have indicated better results from
><-MATE_VALUE+300 [ie, any mate score]. Doesnt this make sense? Because, after
>all, mated is mated [an absolute score]. Then again, I suppose the distance to
>mate IS somewhat indicative of the actuall threat ... comments...

I don't know.  I've never tried to extend for mates in more than one move.
My intuition tells me that extending for deep mates is probably not a good
idea.  Defending against a mate in several moves is usually much easier than
defending against a mate in one.

Of course, my intuition is very often wrong regarding computer chess.
Perhaps extending for deep mates is a good idea.  The only way to find
out is to try.

>>4. Attacking moves.  If you evaluate all internal nodes (as I do), compare
>>the value of the king safety component of the evaluation function before
>>and after a move is made.  If a move dramatically reduces the opponent's
>>king safety, you extend.
>>
>>In order to avoid search explosions, you may want to use fractional
>>extensions.  I extend by a full ply only for checks.
>>
>Tord, does this mean you extend less for the mate threat extension and the
>1reply to check?

Yes.  Checks are always extended by a full ply (this could probably be
improved).  Mate threats and 1 reply to check are extended by something
between 1/3 and 3/4 of a ply, depending on the position.

>It seems backward to me IMHO [I say this intuitively, not
>because of experimental data] It seems there are trillions of worthless checks
>but far fewer 1reply and mate-threats ... yes/no/maybe ??

Most of the experimental data I have seen indicate that your intuition
is incorrect.  Check extensions are very important.  If you remove them
from a chess engine, the playing strength will usually drop noticably.
1reply and mate threats, on the other hand, tend to help a lot in test
suites, but usually don't have a big effect on the playing strength in
real games.

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.