Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 13:56:20 01/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2004 at 16:26:42, Ed Trice wrote: > >> >>Have you considered trying MTD(f) instead of PVS? I am not sure it is any more >>efficient in practice, but it is easier to code, and has the additional benefit >>of making you feel different, original, interesting, intelligent, handsome and >>attractive. >> > >Well Aske Plaat would love to hear that :) > >But doesn't MTD(f) trigger a great deal of researches? I remember trying that >once and it bloated the tree. ---- opinion mode on ---- MTD(f) has two big problems. 1, you ponder the wrong move occasionally because your PVs are less accurate. If you are pondering the wrong move 20% of the time that is equivalent to a 10% time loss. 2, MTD(f) is at its worst when the score is dropping. A fail high in MTD(F) is much faster than a fail low (1 child node vs all child nodes). Unfortunately, this is when you need your search the most: you are in trouble, and you need to make exact moves to win/draw (you might already be lost, but thats just the way it goes). I remember some Zappa-Gothmog games where Gothmog had been searching 8 ply, got in a tight spot, made a 6 ply search, played a huge blunder, and went from -1 to -5 the next move. ---- opinion mode off ---- Most people that try MTD(f) will give up very fast because it requires a two-limit hash table rather than a bound hash like most people implement. Its a difference of style, but in my opinion worst case performance is key when for search. There is some interesting room for work IMHO with MTD(f)/PVS hybrids. anthony
This page took 0.01 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.