Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Need Help In Explaning PVS Using Tree Example

Author: Cheok Yan Cheng

Date: 00:46:02 06/10/01

Go up one level in this thread


On June 10, 2001 at 02:39:43, Christophe Theron wrote:
>The trick is that you do no re-search in the first branches, because the first
>branch in the PVS algorithm is searched with the FULL alphabeta window, not a
>"null" window (where beta=alpha+1).
>
>In any position, the first move is searched with an ]alpha;beta[ window, the
>returned score becomes the new alpha value (unless there is a cutoff in which
>case you quit), and you search the rest of the moves with an ]alpha;alpha+1[
>window. If you get a fail high in any of these moves (and only in this case),
>you need to re-search the move with an ]alpha+1;beta[ window.

What is the advantages of using ]alpha, alpha+1[ in the 2nd and the rest of the
child node? I don't see any point it will produce more cutoff than original
alpha beta search. Compare the two windows is

]7, 8[ //Null Window search
]7, 100[ //original alpha beta search

If value<=7, ignore the value. (both windows)
If value>=100, return the value (both windows)
If value>7 AND value<100, re-search arghhhh...... (only Null windows)

See! No advantages gain from NULL WINDOWS. This confused me a lot!
Please help me with this by providing me some example.

>This is a rough explanation of the principle, but I think it highlights a point
>you had missed.
>
>If the move ordering is perfect, you never need to do a re-search, so you have
>saved some work because many nodes have been searched with a smaller window.
>
>
>
>    Christophe



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.