Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:46:50 05/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2004 at 06:39:23, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On May 26, 2004 at 13:49:38, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On May 26, 2004 at 13:34:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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... >> >>I am fairly sure you will find that _everywhere_ is a waste. It is probably >>not worth doing near the leaf, you have a hash table move to search, or when >>a fail-low is most likely. Perhaps you should also use a somewhat bigger >>reduction factor than in your "along-the PV IID". >> >>Note that it could also be interesting to look for good ways to make use of the >>return value of the internal search. It gives a reasonably reliable estimate >>of the value of a full-depth search, and can be useful as an ingredient in >>pruning tricks. The most obvious (and entirely risk-free) case is when the >>reduced-depth search returns a mate score. When this happens, it is clearly >>not necessary to do a full-depth search. >> >>Tord > >Yes, there is lots of room for playing with IID. > >Note that 95% of all nodes fail high in some way, so you can be pretty >aggressive. The % of all nodes that fail high is dependent on the engine but it does not seem to me logical that 95% of all nodes fail high in some way. After every nodes that fail high you may have many nodes that fail low because a node that fail high means that all the node one ply after it must fail low. Uri
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.