Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: MTD searches

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 11:42:31 04/13/02

Go up one level in this thread

On April 12, 2002 at 15:08:51, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>I have another thought, which may or may not be related to
>these issues.
>Why don't MTD(n,f) searchers have trouble with this? If the
>PVS can have a fail high/fail low sequence, couldn't this
>happen with MTD(n,f) as well? As far as I see, the result
>would be that the MTD quits (it has converged, after all)
>and ends up with the move that corresponds to the false-fail
>high one in PVS. These are often blunders. Why doesn't this

There are not many MTD programs. I could mention the names
of SOS and Postmodernist. Both programs are not exactly beginners.

Other programs are simply no serious MTD programs. I mean cilk
was like 256 processors and nearly material only, *no* compare
with other programs therefore, especially because there is no
new data about it.

MTD you get way sooner than PVS problems with dubiously adressed
things as lazy evaluation and futility in qsearch.

Obviously that means that if they simply do not use it or adress it
better than the careless programmers who use PVS, that they do
not have the problem which good PVS problems don't have either.


This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.