Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 21:30:26 07/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
Correction -- I was mistaken. I was using the wrong test and mixed results. With a fixed set of 30 test positions (Reinfeld, WAC, 1-30), MTDF and PVSNEGASCOUT compare in this way at 1 second per move: MTDF **** 90% 27/30 25.69 6640618 221354/1/258440 0/0/307973/0/0/0 PVSNEGASCOUT **** 90% 27/30 25.56 6877388 229246/1/269110 0/0/316245/0/0/0 1st number refers to %-correct 2nd pair 27/30 refers to number correct against total 3rd floating point refers to time in seconds 4th number refers to grand total nodes searched 5th triple is ave nodes searched per test position / average time per position rounded up / average nodes per second during set 6th hextuple refers to some extensions that are used identically in both The above MTDF uses the PVSNEGASCOUT for its calls to a search routine. This is good considering I knew next to nothing about MTD(f), implemented it yesterday just copying Aske's code, and got a good tip from Tony and threw it in. Now for the meat. Anyone have something to really make this MTD(f) shine? I understand 5-15% is the expected improvement in tree size reduction? Is that all? Stuart
This page took 0.03 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.