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.