Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Building the Principal Variation in MTD(f) searches

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 13:42:08 07/19/99

Go up one level in this thread


On July 19, 1999 at 16:08:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On July 19, 1999 at 13:28:27, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>On July 19, 1999 at 06:14:45, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>I'm quite positive my 8 probe hashtable works excellent.
>>>
>>>I'm quite sure i investigated MTD very well.
>>>
>>>So what are we talking about?
>>>
>>>i give 2 reasons why MTD sucks bigtime for my program namely:
>>>     - it searches space PVS doesn't search; called overhead
>>>     - it's worst case behaviour is simply losing games for me,
>>>       as in *some* positions where it's already tough to search with PVS
>>>       it is only busy researching and researching to get a bound.
>>>
>>>The only thing you say then is that i'm not using hashtables?
>>>Comon drop dead.
>>
>>This isn't what I said.  I think it's clear you didn't read what I wrote very
>>carefully.  Oh well, it's not my problem.
>
>I posted a position with analyzes here.
>I'll post it again if you need, please let your proggie search 20 ply
>just using NULLMOVE R=3 and your beloved MTD, then we can talk.
>
>>[snip]
>>Dave

My program searches _far_ deeper than 20 ply with mtd(f), and without nullmove
at all.  Of course, it's not playing chess, but you can't have everything.

Dave



This page took 0.01 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.