Author: Dan Homan
Date: 08:25:07 07/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 1999 at 08:52:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >Let's however write down some facts why my prog is unhappy with MTD. >It's up to others to generalize it to their progs: > > - the huge number of researches needed. In DIEP my evaluation is nowadays > in 1/1000 of a pawn. For a long time i had 1/200 of a pawn (in the time > i experimented with MTD), but now i have 1/1000 of a pawn. So a drop > of 0.20 pawn, which is a normal drop in DIEP, is in fact a drop of 200 > points. Happy researching! Even if the score dropped a whole pawn (1000 points in DIEP), this would only be 10 or 11 zero-width searches (2^10 = 1024) assuming that you bound the score in an efficient manner. Also, I can understand having a high resolution within the eval routine itself, but does it really help to have the output of the eval be in 1/1000 pawn units? I wouldn't trust the sum total of any eval routine to 0.001 pawns! Maybe you could output the total eval in units of 1/100 of a pawn (or even less). Actually, that is an interesting question. Does anyone know what the optimum eval unit is for searching? I am talking here only about what the eval outputs - not the unit used internally for calculating the eval. I know that most programs use the same unit for both purposes, but I wonder if that is really optimum. - Dan
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.