Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:17:57 11/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2000 at 13:17:29, Pat King wrote: >As part of my continuing development of ZOTRON, I did a series of test runs >comparing AB, PVS, and MTD. These tests were done without q-search, showed PVS >to be better than MTD to be better than AB, and weren't terribly surprising. I >stuck with MTD because it should simplify some things I intend to do later. I >then implemented q-search, and was surprised to find MTD's performance to be >greatly improved as a result. I surmise that this is because q-search gives a >more stable evaluation during iterative deepening, resulting in fewer >"surprises" and re-searches, which more than outweigh the extra nodes spent in >the q-search. > >Is this reasonable? And does PVS get a similar benefit from q-search? > >Pat A good q-search should help either algorithm equally, so your first result isn't surprising.
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.