Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Beating MTD(n,f)

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 07:32:14 06/06/01

Go up one level in this thread

On June 06, 2001 at 09:06:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>Noop it doesn't make it void.
>To get from 100 to 200 is harder as it is to get from 10 to 20.

If they mean the same thing, not at all.

Note that I said you should be taking convergence acceletrators
into account. Every competetive implementation of MTD(n,f) has
them and the papers suggest them so that is a valid requirement.

If you increase the window forecefull from 100 to 200 when you
are using millipawns it's the exact same thing as increasing it
from 10 to 20 when you are using centipawns.

If you rely purely on the fail-soft and do not adjust the bounds
with the accelerators, I think you are right, but I really would
like to see evidence of it. When forcing the bounds it's just the
same thing however, and that is what every good MTD(n,f) implementation
is doing.

You are basically saying that the difference between 0.1 and 0.2
is different from that between 0.1 and 0.2. No it's not :)


This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.