ChessUSA.com TalkChess.com
Hosted by Your Move Chess & Games
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

hashing, check extensions and depth

 
Post new topic       TalkChess.com Forum Index -> Computer Chess Club: Programming and Technical Discussions Threaded
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mike Adams



Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 292
Location: Tacoma, WA USA

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:32 pm    Post subject: hashing, check extensions and depth Reply to topic Reply with quote

hi,

I use check extensions in my program ( pulsar ) and i also hash. I turn on extensions at a variable depth, like once its searched the first 2 ply. this means pottentailly that if a depth like depth 6 is hashed and it was hashed on ply 2, before check extensions, it may not be the same deepeness of search as something searched on ply 3 to 6 depth when check extensions were on for one additional level. Is this a problem? How would you correct it? I know how deep i searched when i hash in terms of where i came from but dont offhand know how deep i searched after the depth i hashed from. Some lines would get searched deeper than others if there was check extensions activated. I'm thinking it shouldnt matter to much but wanted to get others opinions.

thanks
Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
H.G.Muller



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 12765
Location: Amsterdam

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:23 am    Post subject: Re: hashing, check extensions and depth Reply to topic Reply with quote

Always store the true depth to which a position is searched in the hash. When you retrieve it, you can judge if this depth is sufficient for the depth you want now, taking the extensions into account. You don't care if the entry in the hash was made in an extended 5-ply search or a non-extended 6-ply search, it is the same search and so it should lead to an identical entry.

If you worry about some sub-trees being searched deeper in some cases, you would really have to store that information in the hash table. Logically it is part of the depth information. A stored depth (draft) of 6 with extensions suppressed should not be able to satisfy a request for a search of depth 6 with extensions switched on ('depth 6+'), but the latter search should not be able to satisfy a request for a 7-ply search without extensions. It is really an intermediate depth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Onno Garms



Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 224
Location: Bonn, Germany

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:10 am    Post subject: Re: hashing, check extensions and depth Reply to topic Reply with quote

adams161 wrote:
Some lines would get searched deeper than others if there was check extensions activated. I'm thinking it shouldnt matter to much but wanted to get others opinions.


I think this is hard to avoid and in deed should not matter too much. If you turn extensions on at say ply 9, then the same position at ply 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 all will have different results. Storing the extension information in the hash table might still be possible in this case, but when you add other search heuristics later, you will have to extend the hash table. For some heuristics, e.g. history pruning, it is not possible to store the information in the hash table.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chan Rasjid



Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 522
Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:53 am    Post subject: Re: hashing, check extensions and depth Reply to topic Reply with quote

Hello,

I think Muller's comment to just hash the actual depth to which a position is searched is normally sufficient in hashing and the rests will fall into proper perspectives.

Quote:
...Storing the extension information in the hash table might still be possible in this case,...


I doubt anyone do this. It would add too much complexity and, even if things can be maintained logically, there may not be any benefits or elo gain even if successful.

As long as there is hashing+ pruning+extention, it is not expected that a position that is re-searched will search the same tree as conditions change. This is the unavoidable problem of search instability that may be related to what you are trying to resolved.

Best Regards,
Rasjid
_________________
Don't believe when you're told "There's no free lunch!" There is Linux.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic       TalkChess.com Forum Index -> Computer Chess Club: Programming and Technical Discussions All times are GMT
Threaded
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Enhanced with Moby Threads