Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Beating MTD(n,f)

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 03:45:40 06/08/01

Go up one level in this thread


On June 08, 2001 at 05:06:25, Dan Newman wrote:

>On June 08, 2001 at 03:44:44, Tony Werten wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>The hash table can do this to you.  Even if all your code is mirror imaged
>for black and white, if you use random numbers for the hash table, then
>overwriting of positions will differ in the two cases, and the solution
>times (node counts) will vary.  In my code I would get this effect even
>without the hash because my move generator generates moves for black and
>white in different orders for mirrored positions...

I don't use random numbers, but I think you have the point.

At the start I scan the board to fill my piece arrays. I do this from downleft
to upright. If I mirror then 2 equal pieces will be in different order, so
moveorder will change so nodecount will change.

Sounds logic.

Thanks,

Tony
>
>-Dan.



This page took 0.18 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.