Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:34:23 05/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2004 at 12:30:33, Tord Romstad wrote: >On May 26, 2004 at 12:13:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 26, 2004 at 10:53:16, Stefano Gemma wrote: >> >>>I've used an recursive-iterative deepening. I try to explain in my poor english. >>>At any N plyes i've applyed iterative deepening as for the root. Suppose to >>>start with 2 plies. The next iterations you should search 4 then 6 then 8 plies >>>etc, form the root. But, when you're searching 8 plies depth, and you are at a >>>position located at ply 2, why don't use iterative deepening starting from ply >>>2, instead to do a full search of the remaining 6 plies? So i've tried to >>>consider positions at ply 2 (and 4 and 6...) as they were at the root, and start >>>a search to ply 4, then 6, then 8. Sometimes works better, sometimes worse... >>> >>>I have tried different schemas, in Raffaela. The best seems the schema 2-4. You >>>increment the iterative deepening by 2 plies (one chess move by colour) and, for >>>any ply, you make an iterative deepening with increment 4. In some position, 2-2 >>>was better. >>> >>>I've abandoned this idea, for now, because i'm working on a new engine and i've >>>little time for my hobby, but i think that could be interesting. >>> >>>Ciao!!! >>> >>>Stefano Gemma >> >> >>That sounds like an interesting idea that is worth testing. IE at _any_ ply >>where you want to do a depth=N search, you iterate and do a depth=1, 2, ..., N >>to work your way up to that point. With luck the depth 1 to n-1 searches will >>be cheap with hash information, if there is none, move ordering will probably be >>broken anyway and this might improve things. > >This is exactly what I always thought was called "internal iterative >deepening", but I have recently learned that others use this term to refer >to something different. > >I use something similar to Stefano's technique (if I understood it correctly) >at all internal nodes where the remaining depth is high (currently 5 plies or >more) and I expect a fail high. > >Tord I have used "IID" for years, but in a very restricted way, namely to handle the case along the PV where I have no hash move. I've never tried it _everywhere_ before, so have no data. But I intend to try to see if it is something that could work, or if it is a waste...
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.