Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 20:09:02 08/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2000 at 19:47:27, Dan Andersson wrote:
>On August 16, 2000 at 19:34:21, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>
>>On August 16, 2000 at 18:52:03, David Rasmussen wrote:
>>
>>>My Qsearch usually takes up 70-80 % of the nodes searched.
>>>What are the, say, 10 best ideas/techniques to cut this number down?
>>
>>a) don't qsearch
>>
>>b) use futility pruning
>>
>>c) use SEE futility pruning
>>
>>d) live with it...qsearch % tends to be high in every chessprogram
>>
>>>P.S. I am writing a new chess program from scratch and I'm very much in love
>>>with the scientific beauty of MTD(f). What are the pratical pros and cons of
>>>doing MTD(f). What are the pitfalls etc. ?
>>
>>It causes trouble with search trics that depend on alpha/beta values.
>But introduces new tricks. Especially if one uses ETC.
Sorry to ask (actually you certainly expect someone will ask), but
What is ETC?
Christophe
>>Its harder to get a PV.
>Yep.
>>It's not necessarily faster than PVS.
>In the best case MTD and PVS will search the same nodes. And if you use ETC I'm
>almost certain it will search a smaller tree in the average case. ETC will slow
>search down, but there are ways to alleviate that. F.ex no ETC the last N plies.
>>Depends more on large hashtables than other methods.
>Í would say that it suffers badly from to small TTs instead, maybe even
>benefitting more from large TTs than other methods. (Thats pure speculation)
>>
>>>P.P.S. Why is my chess program code so messy?
>>
>>Because its a chessprogram.
>>
>>--
>>GCP
>
>Regards Dan Andersson
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.