Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:05:09 09/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2002 at 13:16:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 11, 2002 at 12:33:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 10, 2002 at 21:01:49, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On September 10, 2002 at 20:45:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On September 10, 2002 at 18:06:01, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 10, 2002 at 17:51:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 10, 2002 at 17:43:15, martin fierz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 10, 2002 at 17:18:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On September 10, 2002 at 17:10:38, martin fierz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On September 10, 2002 at 09:26:14, Eli Liang wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>(3) Reading Aske Plaat's search & re-search paper, it really seems like mtd(f) >>>>>>>>>>is something of a magic bullet. But I note it seems that more programs don't >>>>>>>>>>use it than do (for example Crafty). What is wrong with mtd(f) which Plaat >>>>>>>>>>doesn't say? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>losing 1 bit is a problem for you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>nope. losing 2 bytes is more like it... >>>>>> >>>>>>who stores a bound in 2 bytes? >>>>>> >>>>>>Why not in 1 bit? >>>>> >>>>>You want to store two actual values, not flags that indicate what >>>>>kind of bound it is. >>>> >>>>did i implement it smarter then or what? >>>>i used 2 bits in total. 'upperbound, lowerbound, truebound'. >>>>the search result is based upon a single bound. So it IS the same, >>>>it IS higher or it IS lower. >>>> >>>>What am i missing here? >>> >>>i'm doing the same. but in plaat's papers, he suggests you store both an upper >>>bound, and a lower bound. the idea seems to be that since MTD potentially >>>produces lots of researches, you could maybe use the additional information. at >>>least that's what i think it's supposed to be. >>>as an example, take a position somewhere in your search tree with true value 15. >>>you do your first test with 0. you get e.g. lowerbound(p)=13. then you try 20. >>>you get e.g. upperbound(p)=18. >>>now, if your third test is for +10, and you get to this position again, you get >>>a HT cutoff because of lowerbound(p)=13. the way you and i implemented it, we >>>would only have the information upperbound(p)=18 in our table. which would give >>>you no cutoff here. that's what i think this is about. >>>however, there was this discussion about MTD always approaching the score from >>>the same side. like that the sequence of tests i described 0,20,10 is not >>>possible for certain MTD implementations. then you don't need to store 2 values, >>>as bob pointed out. >>> >>>aloha >>> martin >>> >> >>It is a very "iffy" thing. If you can approach from the same side until the >>last search, you will be ok. But that means you will approach the true score >>more slowly if you have a "big" score swing. If you "bounce over" then all >>the hash entries are going to be worthless. But then again, by bouncing over >>you are also killing performance anyway since it is better to approach the true >>score from the "upper side" for reasons already given. > >if you don't do binary jumps then obviously you always approach score >for a ply P from the same direction. > Think about that for a minute. Suppose I start high and decrement by .04 rather than .01. That is (a) not binary; (b) can well bounce over the right score. > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>-- >>>>>GCP
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.