Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:11:20 07/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 1999 at 17:14:17, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On July 18, 1999 at 14:22:14, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On July 18, 1999 at 14:10:03, Andrew Williams wrote: >> >>>In PostModernist's case it would search 1.03, then 1.02, then 0.98, then >>>0.89, then 0.73, then 0.48. It would then start to work its way back up, >>>0.48, 0.49, 0.51, 0.54 etc. >> >>>So in this example, PM needs a lot of re-searches, but it's not just to >>>do with the gap between the iteration scores - for example, going from 1.03 >>>down to 0.48 would be considerably faster than going from 1.03 to 0.72, >>>because of where the scores lie and because of my approach to traversing >>>gaps. >> >>The idea of having more than 1 research is laughable. >>Now you can of course make a statement that the overhead >>isn't *that* high, which is more or less true, but still... >You're forgetting that the searches all cost far less than a PVS search. You >can sum the total time of 6 researches compared with a PVS implementation, and >the mtd(f) will still be faster more often than not. That's not true, as in the worst case your window is a pawn off. So the first 5 researches are searching space which is completely useless, where in PVS the search overhead only depends upon move ordering. >If you tried mtd(f) with a serious effort and could not get it to work better >than horribly, my guess would be that the stepping algorithm you used for >researches probably was not up to the task. If you have to step a lot, which is logical as my evaluation ain't dumb, then it's quite logical that you search more nonsense, which makes it perform bad.
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.