Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 10:41:19 09/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 2002 at 13:28:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 01, 2002 at 03:20:20, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On August 31, 2002 at 23:54:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Interesting question. Deep Blue essentially used it in the chess hardware, >>>which means the last software ply was a sort of mtd(f) search. >> >>Except that it was missing the 'm' in mtd(f), which made it horribly >>inefficient. >> >>-- >>GCP > > >I don't agree. They simply had a piece of hardware that could search a >null-window tree, and nothing else. Which is all a single search in a single >iteration of mtd(f) can do. The software provided the "m" at the point where >the software handed things off to the hardware... Nonsense. The point of MTD is to use a hashtable to prevent wasted work when researching the tree and trying to converge on a value. The Deep Blue chess chips did *not* have hashtables. This makes them horribly inefficient, as anyone that has actually used or uses MTD will tell you. The fact that the software part of their search had hashtables has *nothing* to do with this. -- GCP
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.