Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:07:56 01/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2006 at 14:52:06, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >http://www.robinupton.com/research/phd/cp_intro.html > >So, has anyone actually used these CNS and CNS-derived ideas in >a chess program? I know about B* and Berliner. I want to know >about things more recent that at least *someone* can speak to >in the commercial or semi-commercial world. Yes i put in months of my time to get CNS to work in diep and experimented extended with it. It doesn't work. >If you don't have actual data, how about theories on how these >would be used? >It seems that determining the least number of nodes that would >have to change to affect the root score or growing the tree >in such a way that the conspiracy is as large or as small as >possible, could yield some interesting deeper searches. > >What is actual in regards to the above for computer chess? You can do nullmove in CNS too, that's what i added to it. It speeds it up considerable. Certain combinations which are just like 11 ply or so, CNS never finds. CNS has a worst case and that is that it never searches search space which your evaluation function doesn't understand. So conspiracy number search never corrects your evaluation function. That's real ugly. It spends it majority of time to complete nonsense. Like 1.e4,h5 2.Qxh5 Rxh5 Rxh5 is forced more or less and CNS will deeply extend that line. In depth limited PVS you nullmove, get a single cutoff and you can bury this nonsense line. 100x more efficient. Vincent >Thanks, > >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.