Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 17:31:26 11/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2001 at 17:59:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 15, 2001 at 16:47:57, Antonio Dieguez wrote: > >>I would like to know why they work for you (if). >> >>I have tried doing a null window search in the first root move with (prev_score, >>prev_score+1), to decide if to research up or down. But that is not better than >>just a (prev_score-window,prev_score+window), is that normal? I mean, if not >>even that works well for me why should I think MTD will? >>What do you get if you do the first thing mentioned? >> >>And do many null window searches in the tree have never worked very well for me. >>No more than 1% or 2% gain. Even only using them when there are ht move of exact >>score and the window is very big I have that 1% or something. I have heard PVS >>is a lot better than alphabeta(with small and nulls windows in the root of >>cors), yea sure... >> >>What difference you get using pvs or using alphabeta with aspiration search? > >I use both PVS _and_ aspiration. I set an aspiration window at the root >before I call Search(), and I use PVS inside the search everywhere. PVS will >generally reduce the tree size by around 10%. Less if the program changes its >mind at the root a lot since it has to re-search those things twice. It might >be more than 10% for positions where you _never_ change your mind or fail high. oh yes yes, I meant that, pvs with aspiration at the same time. I think amyan changes his mind much often :( anyway 10% does not excite me too much :) Be well.
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.