Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: singular extension (PV part only)

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 20:56:17 09/27/04

Go up one level in this thread


On September 27, 2004 at 23:48:56, Stuart Cracraft wrote:

>On September 27, 2004 at 17:00:28, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On September 27, 2004 at 14:21:51, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>>
>>>So when in PVS I've searched my first move, and it is a PV
>>>move as well, with search returning value then I do a depth-2
>>>search on all other moves  and if none -search(depth-2,-beta-MARGIN,-
>>>alpha-MARGIN) <= -beta-MARGIN, where MARGIN is set to 3/4 of a pawn,
>>>then the PV move  is singular and I re-search it with depth instead of depth-1
>>>and use the returned value as my score against which to
>>>measure all other non-PV moves against in the normal part
>>>of the search, searching them to depth-1.
>>>
>>>Is the above wrong?
>>>
>>>Stuart
>>
>>
>>It is wrong.
>>
>>Search the first move with the normal window.  Search the _remaining_ moves with
>>an offset window alpha-w, beta-w.  If all still fail low (which they should do
>>if the first move is best) then the first move is singular.  re-search it again
>>with a deeper search.  If one of the remaining moves fails high on the offset
>>window search, now you have a problem.  Is this move better than the best move?
>>If not the best move is not singular.  But, this move could itself be singular
>>so you have to test that hypothesis by re-searching the first move with a window
>>lowered by the usual offset from the score returned by the second move that
>>failed high.  Repeat until sick or finished.
>>
>>You are describing what is done for determining singularity at fail-high nodes
>>where only one move is normally searched before returning, but you do the
>>"cheaper" searches to try to prove singilarity anyway and extend even a
>>fail-high move one ply...
>
>Ugh -- sounds like a coding mess. I've saved your comments in a futurefile
>but probably won't do much on SE until my computing resources are faster.
>Giving up a ply for long-shots against humans is enticing of course as long
>as the ply loss won't kill me due to very deep searching anyway -- that
>won't happen until my box is 5x faster and that won't happen for awhile.
>
>So at this point not sick but "pending".
>
>Stuart


It _is_ a mess.  By the time you do both PV and FH singular tests, add in the
sticky transposition table stuff, you see why I occasionally question a "certain
poster" that claims (depending on the day of the week) that (a) SE is no good or
(b) he has implemented SE and uses it.  It is non-trivial to do if you do _real_
SE.



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.