Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: MTD(F) results

Author: Andrew Williams

Date: 23:12:08 12/16/03

Go up one level in this thread

On December 16, 2003 at 21:22:56, Anthony Cozzie wrote:

>Recently I experimented with adding MTD(F) into Zappa.  It has been an
>interesting experiment, but I am going back to PVS().
>I thought that since Zappa has a [UL,LL] paired transposition table and an
>evaluation granularity of only 1/100 of a pawn, MTD(f) would work quite well,
>but that does not seem to be the case.  The MTD(f) version of Zappa does
>slightly better on test suites (113/183 @ecmgcp v 106 @ 10s/move) but in the
>positional test suites it averaged about 3/4 of a ply less than the PVS()
>version.  My guess is that because MTD(F) tries all moves, some of the
>"ridiculously losing captures" ordered near the end by PVS() are tried earlier,
>which accounts for the increased test suite performance.

I don't understand the last part of this paragraph. Why would "ridiculously
losing captures" be tried earlier (than what?) in MTD?

>If anyone has any suggestions, I'm keeping the MTD(F) code in Zappa (just turned
>off) and I'm willing to try anything.


This page took 0.07 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.