Author: Tony Werten
Date: 00:44:44 06/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 2001 at 16:04:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 07, 2001 at 06:52:07, Tony Werten wrote: >>On June 06, 2001 at 10:32:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>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 :) >> >>I think what Vincent is saying is that there's a difference between 0.1 and 0.2 >>and 0.10 and 0.20 The first 2 are following each other while the second 2 have 9 >>numbers between them. >> >>Suppose the current score is 0.10 Now I find a move with score 0.12 MTD will >>fail and I have to research. If I had scored 0.1 then the new move would have >>also been 0.1 and MTD wouldn't have to research. >> >>Of course is this not only true for MTD, but for all minimum window searches, >>but in MTD the first (best) move is also done with mws and this is most of the >>time the one that has the fluctuating scores. > >I imagine that this is a stupid question, but what happens if we simply truncate >on the test to research? We could just reorder the moves at that point instead, >if the difference is tiny. Not a stupid question. I was thinking about something like this. If I have time I'll test this weekend. ( I'm messing with my code to get out the bugs ) My idea is this: I like the millipawn stuff, because I can give small bonusses to things I like ( not nescessairily correct ). When I return from the evaluation I could divide it with 10, 100 or whatever. This would mean the millipawn stuff still works (since 10 millipawns is still 1 centipawn ) but my search might have more cutoffs. Tony PS About my code. I found out that if I take a testposition and I mirror it, I get a different solutiontime ( even with material only eval ) I think it's in the extension discision part. Others might try if their engine doesn't have this problem.
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.