Author: Rudolf Huber
Date: 12:03:53 12/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2003 at 10:23:20, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On December 17, 2003 at 09:49:12, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>On December 17, 2003 at 07:48:55, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>On December 17, 2003 at 02:12:08, Andrew Williams wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>anthony >>>> >>>>Andrew >>> >>> >>>In most test suites the winning move is evaluated as losing by the SEE. So in >>>PVS() it gets tried last. In MTD(f) it goes through all the moves every time. >>> >>>anthony >> >>Sorry, I still don't understand? I would have thought that move ordering would >>be pretty much identical for both methods? Am I missing something? >> >>My engine is MTD(f) but if I were to convert it to PVS I think it would still >>try all the moves in the same order, all things being equal. You should look at >>Tord's message as he has some very good advice in there. The convergence >>accelerator thing is *very* important. >> >>Andrew > >Suppose there are 3 moves, A, B, C. > >C is a losing capture according to see, so it is tried last. So in PVS(), we >get: > >A B C++ <- c fails high >C A B > >in mtd(F) we get > >A B C >A B C++ >C A B >C A B >C A B >C A B > >in other words, it figures out that the score is higher very rapidly, and plays >move C relatively earlier. > >anthony Ah, finally an interesting topic. My mtdf(f) engine searches the moves in the following order: A B C++ C++ C++ C++ C++ C D E F++ F++ F++ F G H I J ...Z --> F played or (no fail high during first pass) A B C ... Z A B C ... Z A B C ... Z A B C ... Z A B C ... Z A B C ... Z A B C++ --> C played (moves witout "++" are really "--" i.e. fail low moves) Rudolf
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.