Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: MTD(f) and hash table size

Author: Tord Romstad

Date: 04:24:46 08/18/03

Go up one level in this thread

On August 17, 2003 at 15:08:12, Rudolf Huber wrote:

>On August 17, 2003 at 14:09:19, Tord Romstad wrote:
>>On August 17, 2003 at 04:27:06, Rudolf Huber wrote:
>>>First scan you source files for occurences of alpha and beta.
>>There are no alphas or betas left -- I rewrote search() and qsearch() from
>>when implementing MTD(f).  I only have the single parameter (gamma), like in
>>Aske Plaat's paper.
>>>If you find any look hard and try to understand what you are doing there. In
>>>mtd(f) there ist NO alpha and NO real beta. All the things (lazy eval?)
>>>you do with alpha and beta are most likely wrong. Use the last score instead.
>>What does the "last score" mean in the above sentence?
>Yes, sorry. I mean the score from the previous iteration.

I see!  Thanks for clarification.  This seems like an interesting idea;
I will take a look at it.  Currently I am experimenting with tricks based
on the values of the upper and lower bound in the search driver (an idea
suggested by Andrew Williams).  A disadvantage is, of course, that often
we only have one such bound.

>You can also that score for lazy eval.

Fortunately, I don't use lazy eval.  I am sure it would have given me a
lot of headache when combined with MTD(f).


This page took 0.04 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.