Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 07:32:38 03/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 10, 2004 at 07:56:17, Sergei S. Markoff wrote: >Hello! > >I think that there are a lot of ideas that can be used to reduce search tree, >clever changing a window size of a root search. > >There are some weaknesses of MTD(f) or MTD(f)-like schemes that not allow to use >this schemes by the most of engines. The first is very hard depending of hash >storing/probing efficiency; the second - troubles with null-move. I tried >something like MTD(f) before, including trying to determine move singularity in >position (actually we don't need the exact score of move sometimes to make best >move). Hello Sergei, My own engine is nowhere near as strong as SmarThink, but it tries to implement some similar ideas. In particular, I also use knowledge extensively to guide the search, and like you I use techniques like history based pruning and the Botvinnik-Markoff extension. However, I do use MTD(f), and I am therefore interested in learning more about the problems and weaknesses you mention above. I agree concerning the importance of the hash table, but I am not sure I understand your problems with the null move. Are you referring to the search inconsistencies caused by trying the null move multiple times in the same position but with different values of the search bound, or were you thinking about some other kind of problem(s)? I am mostly very happy about my MTD(f) search, and I think I would need many months to write an equally efficient PVS search. The only problem I see is the uncomfortably high frequency of search inconsistencies. Tord
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.