Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Razoring?

Author: Peter McKenzie

Date: 11:02:27 01/26/99

Go up one level in this thread


On January 26, 1999 at 11:56:50, Steve Maughan wrote:

>I've heard of this technique but am not sure exactly what it is.  Could someone
>please explain it?

Here is what I call razoring:

Lets say we are doing a search to depth N, that means that at depth (N+1) we go
into the quiescence search, meaning the side to move has the option of standing
pat (setting alpha to the static score) or making a capture move.

At depth N, if you have a really bad position and make a harmless move, the
opponent will be able to make a cutoff at depth N+1 just by standing pat.  With
razoring, you try to avoid searching those 'harmless' moves.  My implementation
just goes straight to the quiescence search at depth N if the score is below
alpha by at least 2 pawns.  The reasoning being that a positional move that
isn't a capture probably won't be able to raise the score by 2 pawns.

For example, lets say we're searching the root position to depth 4, and we are
searching the line 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5.  At this point black is a pawn down and needs
to do something pretty flash to prevent white from standing pat at the next
depth and making a cutoff.  At this point I would go straight to the quiescence
search for black, where as without razoring you would search EVERY legal move.


I've recently been experimenting with razoring, but haven't been happy with the
results.  A razoring version of lambChop beat a non-razoring version 26-24,
which isn't statistically significant.  The razoring version does alot worse on
the ECM test suite getting 458/879 (20sec/move on P133) as opposed to 502/879
for the non-razoring version.

A problem with razoring is that you will miss mates near the tips if your q-srch
doesn't look at checks.  Also, you have to be careful about interacting with
lazy evaluation.  Razoring will certainly reduce the number of nodes required to
reach a given search depth, but I'm not convinced its a good tradeoff in my
program.

Regards,
Peter

>
>Regards
>
>Steve Maughan



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.