For or against the transposition table probe in quiet search?
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 1759
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:08 am
- Location: U.S.A
- Full name: Andrew Grant
Re: For or against the transposition table probe in quiet search?
I am for probing, not storing, but only after extensive testing at various time controls and degrees of hash pressure.
#WeAreAllDraude #JusticeForDraude #RememberDraude #LeptirBigUltra
"Those who can't do, clone instead" - Eduard ( A real life friend, not this forum's Eduard )
"Those who can't do, clone instead" - Eduard ( A real life friend, not this forum's Eduard )
-
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:20 am
- Full name: Andreas Matthies
Re: For or against the transposition table probe in quiet search?
I'm doing both probing and storing. Probably not tested as much as you did.
-
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:47 am
- Location: Almere, The Netherlands
Re: For or against the transposition table probe in quiet search?
It depends upon how fast your evaluation function is. If it's very fast and simple probing in quiescence is counter productive, with a slow evaluation function like NNUE it certainly helps. I always found probing (and storing) in quiescence to be better, even with my HCE.
I never tested it with more than 32 threads though.
I never tested it with more than 32 threads though.
-
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:14 pm
- Location: Colorado, USA
- Full name: John Stanback
Re: For or against the transposition table probe in quiet search?
I store and probe at depth == 0. I only store positions where a move gave a cutoff. This seemed a bit better, but I didn't do much testing with lots of threads or with limited HT size.
John
John
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:04 am
- Location: France
- Full name: Richard Delorme
Re: For or against the transposition table probe in quiet search?
My two related chess engines have a divergent opinion about this:
- Amoeba: for
- Dumb: against
Richard Delorme
-
- Posts: 879
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:45 am
Re: For or against the transposition table probe in quiet search?
Well, there is not only black and white. Beside technical implementation details like HGM described you can check for some conditions
before probing the TT. Like with other techniques (e.g. quiet checks in qs) you can limit lookups depth dependent for example
or any other restriction which might be useful in your opinion. Using TT logic when entering qs (depth == 0) seems pretty normal today.
Beside the speed efford, the replacement scheme might be very important in this context.
From my point of view, more valuable nodes can be overwritten with entries from the quiescent search very often.
All in all, TT speed, TT information and the criteria when to use it make it work or not.
With information i mean for example:
Maybe it is important how much the effect of move ordering will have, so how important it is that there is a move in TT.
Many engines keep a bestmove that was best at some other point in the search, instead of overwriting it with an empty slot.
Today i use a mix of always replace / depth scheme. (basic,simple and requires aging).
I only use TT when entering the quiescence and i keep best moves before writing an empty slot (upperbound node).
On the other hand, i never got it to work in my old engine.
If you get it to work you might achieve 10 or 20 elo (i guess).
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:37 am
- Location: Manchester, UK
- Full name: Martin Bryant
Re: For or against the transposition table probe in quiet search?
Over the years the TT has been in and out of the QS in Colossus.
It's currently in.
The last time I tested taking it out (about 2 years ago) it was a noticeable ELO loss (but admittedly on a rather short test run).
On my test set of positions it saves about 9% of the node count.
About 23% of the QS nodes get succesfully returned by the TT value.
I've just started another test going... I'll report back tomorrow.
Also, FWIW, Stockfish appears to use TT in the QS.
It's currently in.
The last time I tested taking it out (about 2 years ago) it was a noticeable ELO loss (but admittedly on a rather short test run).
On my test set of positions it saves about 9% of the node count.
About 23% of the QS nodes get succesfully returned by the TT value.
I've just started another test going... I'll report back tomorrow.
Also, FWIW, Stockfish appears to use TT in the QS.
-
- Posts: 3232
- Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:29 pm
- Full name: lucasart
Re: For or against the transposition table probe in quiet search?
For.
It's not even close. Testing shows a clear regression if you remove HT from QS.
Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time.
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:37 am
- Location: Manchester, UK
- Full name: Martin Bryant
Re: For or against the transposition table probe in quiet search?
Ok... so I played a match between Colossus with the TT in the QS vs without.
Result was +44 ELO after 1280 games (+/-19 ELO @ 99% confidence, LOS 100%)
So clearly a benefit to Colossus which is currently using a very simple PST eval during this new development phase.
Result was +44 ELO after 1280 games (+/-19 ELO @ 99% confidence, LOS 100%)
So clearly a benefit to Colossus which is currently using a very simple PST eval during this new development phase.