Author: rasjid chan
Date: 16:54:38 04/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2004 at 14:09:04, Bo Persson wrote:
>On April 14, 2004 at 13:47:06, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On April 14, 2004 at 13:33:38, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On April 14, 2004 at 03:30:22, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>
>>>>I decided to toss an MTD(f) search into TSCP, and I've got something wrong, but
>>>>I can't quite see what it is.
>>>
>>>There is a lot more to do.
>>>
>>>1. you need to modify the hash table to store 2 bounds, not 1.
>>
>>That was not done yet.
>
>But not too hard!
>
>>
>>>2. the search must be fail-soft. TSCP isn't.
>>
>>I had already done that.
>>
>>>3. PV has to be yanked from the hash table and that makes it flakey at times as
>>>has been discussed many times. There is another way to get the PV, but it is a
>>>special case solution only for mtd...
>>
>>Tord showed a very nice way to do that with a clever "hash only" update.
>>
>>>4. the convergence has to be accelerated. IE on a fail high searching v and
>>>v+1 won't cut it.
>
>I can supply that part, learned from CCC a couple of years ago of course.
>
> // Calculate next gamma and Step
>
> if (gamma < Beta)
> {
> GlobalUpperBound = gamma;
> gamma = max(gamma - Step, GlobalLowerBound + 1);
> SteppedDown = true;
> }
> else
> {
> GlobalLowerBound = gamma;
> gamma = min(gamma + Step, GlobalUpperBound - 1);
> SteppedUp = true;
> }
>
> if (SteppedUp & SteppedDown)
> Step /= 2;
> else
> if (Step < (GlobalUpperBound - GlobalLowerBound) / 2)
> Step *= 2;
>
>
>Here gamma is your f. The idea is to accellerate the stepping, until you have
>over stepped the score twice, once in each direction. Then you have an
>acceptable bound, and can start to zoom in, using smaller and smaller steps as
>you get closer and closer.
>
>The GlobalUpperBound and GlobalLowerBound should really be global. If you use
>lazy evaluations those are the bounds to use there, not the local alpha/beta
>which are always just 1 point apart.
>
>>>
>>>IE this is not a "drop in and go" it is a "rewrite and test" thing to do. :)
>
No, I think it is slight rewrite and a re-tune.
=====================
I am now using the the simplest mdtf, nothing except adding about
10-20 lines at the root-search and it seems to work equally well as
my aspiration/pvs.I have fail-soft, hash TT with 1 bound, only step +/-1.
I don't need to change anything(yet)in other parts of my program. The
same hashing remains. But as Vasik mentioned before, it is crucial to
mdtf that fail-soft is w/o bugs and CORRECT. I think routinely
failing/hashing outside bounds itself may not be sufficient.
I have not yet examine if other things need to be changed to make mdtf
efficient.I guess most who try mdtf will abandone it as it usually will be
clearly slower.
Best Regards
Rasjid
>
>
>Bo Persson
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.