Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: QSearch() as PVS() ?

Author: Anthony Cozzie

Date: 07:54:16 01/15/04

Go up one level in this thread


On January 14, 2004 at 17:20:46, Filip Tvrzsky wrote:

>On January 14, 2004 at 16:56:20, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I have noticed this in several postings before but still do not follow: why is
>with MTD(f) necessary to store two limits in hash table instead of only one?
>Filip
>
>>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


There is no reason you _have_ to, but the fact is you are much more likely to
come across the case.

In PVS it is very unlikely you will ever have two bounds:  your node types are
ALL, CUT, and PV: so you have one of [lowerbound, upperbound, exact].  This is
what Hyatt does in Crafty.

In MTD(f) you do multiple searches with windows, so you know that a node is
"better than -15 but less than -2".  Intuitively it seems that throwing out this
would hurt you as you enter an oscillating pattern.  Of course, my intuition has
been wrong before . . .

anthony



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.