Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: triangular array vs. walking the hash table

Author: Stuart Cracraft

Date: 21:20:48 09/20/04

Go up one level in this thread


On September 20, 2004 at 00:28:06, Michael Henderson wrote:

>On September 20, 2004 at 00:00:57, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>
>>On September 19, 2004 at 20:21:57, Michael Henderson wrote:
>>
>>>On September 19, 2004 at 19:26:25, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>>>
>>>>On September 19, 2004 at 19:11:51, Michael Henderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On September 19, 2004 at 18:55:25, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On September 19, 2004 at 17:51:05, Michael Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On September 19, 2004 at 17:04:14, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  2) is the above normal that walking the hash gives sometimes
>>>>>>>>     a longer pv?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>perfectly normal since many people use hash to "extend" their PV's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not sure I understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>The length of the PV using hash tables is variable because you don't know the
>>>>>length of the PV...you just keep probing the hash until you can't get anything
>>>>>useful out of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>for example:
>>>>>triangular array PV: A B C D E
>>>>>walking the hash PV: A B C D E F G
>>>>>
>>>>>you got move F because you probed position E and found a good move to print.
>>>>>Move G from probing position F. Triangular array PV has a definite depth--search
>>>>>depth limited.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  3) I update my triangular array in the main search and the
>>>>>>>>     quiescence search. reasonable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>yes.  The problem with qsearch is that it's just "cleanup"--considers only
>>>>>>>certain types of moves.  So qsearch section of the PV might contain some stupid
>>>>>>>moves you might not want to display.  There's nothing wrong with knowing what
>>>>>>>your qsearch is doing, though...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>More information is never less, to be sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  4) Anything else you can think of.
>>>
>>>Ok these are some random but relevant questions:
>>
>>>1. When you make a two-square pawn move, and the opponent cannot make an ep
>>>capture, do you hash-xor the "target" ep square in the hash table?
>>
>>Currently no special handling is done for the hash table in regards to
>>enpassant. That information is not recorded in any way.
>>
>>>2. When you get a null move cutoff at a node and store in the hash table, do you
>>>store NULLMOVE as the move in the hash table, or do you store the move from the
>>>hash probe at this node?
>>
>>When the null move score is >= beta, I am returning
>>from the search routine immediately. No hash store.
>>
>>Stuart
>
>I highly recommend trying it, null move cutoffs are a major portion of your
>search! Storing them will give you a speedup esp with 1-tier, 1 second searches.
> Now tell me your WAC results :)
>
>Michael

I implemented 2-tier this past weekend and also just implemented
the storing of null move cutoffs in the hash table.

I measure by result on test suite and didn't check overall tree
size but need to redo that to answer the question.

The test suite result didn't improve as a result of either of the
above.

250/300 is a hard limit for me right now. We'll see what happens
in the coming weeks. I constantly rework things that I have tried
before and abandoned or that I think won't work or that were already
(I think) implemented properly -- to see if some slipup would give
an extra position or two.

Also I am constantly trying anything from the bulletin board.

Well, thanks for the interest and support. The final 16.67% will take
99.999% of the effort I am sure.

Stuart



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.