Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: MTD concept and why PVS is superior

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 07:01:12 06/22/05

Go up one level in this thread


On June 21, 2005 at 16:11:50, Bo Persson wrote:

>On June 20, 2005 at 08:06:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>
>>If at 13 ply the score of other moves is 0.35 or so and from this root move it's
>>0.400, then we have a 100 point difference between 0.300 and 0.400.
>>
>>Now we need possibly a 100 researches to get to 0.400, but at least 2 dozen or
>>so. As we will use bounds 0.300 0.301 0.302 0.303 0.304, hoping that the score
>>is close to 0.300 of iteration 12 of course.
>>
>>PVS is far superior in this as we can determine the true bound directly by
>>taking the tree of 12 ply search depth. We add 1 ply to it and we already have a
>>root score of real close to 0.400 to it. So for the price of a node or 50 using
>>hashtables we directly determine a true bound or somethign real close to the
>>true bound, where MTD needs 20+ researches for.
>>
>>Is my point clear now?
>
>This is the usual Vincent thing - he can't get it to work, so it just doesn't
>work.
>
>Who said you had to add 1 millipawn for each research? You can accellerate the
>step (+16, +32, +64, etc), until you step over the target, and then zoom in
>again.
>
>To go from 0.300 to 0.400, my program tries this series:
>
>0.300 0.316 0.348 0.412 (fail low!) 0.380 0.396 0.404 0.400
>
>That's eight (8) searches, not 100, not even 20+ !

>Bo Persson

By not using step 1 initially you remove all advantages that MTD *might* offer.

In advance that's going to be working worse of course than PVS.

With PVS you directly have a nullwindow around 0.400

Vincent


>
>>
>>Vincent
>>



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.