Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: What do you do in "hard" positions?

Author: Anthony Cozzie

Date: 16:51:24 04/06/05

Go up one level in this thread


On April 06, 2005 at 19:31:27, Walter Faxon wrote:

>In a recent thread (http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?419679), the
>problem of on-line lookup of 6-man endgame tablebases was discussed.  The
>consensus was that for computer play, you could (maybe) load blocks of related
>positions from near the root, not make individual requests for the value of
>specific positions, since even fast net access is a snail compared to a good
>hard disk.
>
>Either way, it takes a good block of time.  To a much lesser degree, even
>looking up the hash value for the current position can lose if its cache line
>isn't already loaded.  Main memory lookup can require hundreds of processor
>cycles on modern hardware.  (Probably a reason why Hyper-Threading(R) technology
>works so well for computer chess.  When one thread stalls the other might be
>able to continue.)
>
>In between is the standard situation where a particular position in the tree has
>multi-depth subsearches returning with widely varying scores and suggested
>moves.  You've reached a "hard" position.  Or maybe before you've done any
>searching on a position, you've somehow statically determined that it is "hard"
>(like it will require a disk lookup).  Either way, what should you do?
>
>My question is:  Is it ever reasonable to just say "I'm going to leave the
>evaluation of this position until later, if necessary."  And continue the
>search.  It is possible and in many cases likely that the remaining search will
>cut off at least some of the hard positions, and you will discover that you
>never really needed to evaluate these in the first place.  Maybe the search tree
>could be marked so that when the "easy" search has been completed you can then
>return to try to understand the remaining hard positions, in an order of how
>they affect the remaining tree.
>
>Has anybody written code that addresses this?
>
>-- Walter

Move ordering is very interesting, because you don't really want to search the
best move first, you want to search the move that will provide a cutoff with the
least amount of work.  Unfortunately, this seems like a really hard problem . .
.

anthony



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.