Author: martin fierz
Date: 14:43:15 09/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 17:18:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 10, 2002 at 17:10:38, martin fierz wrote: > >>On September 10, 2002 at 09:26:14, Eli Liang wrote: >> >>>(3) Reading Aske Plaat's search & re-search paper, it really seems like mtd(f) >>>is something of a magic bullet. But I note it seems that more programs don't >>>use it than do (for example Crafty). What is wrong with mtd(f) which Plaat >>>doesn't say? > >losing 1 bit is a problem for you? nope. losing 2 bytes is more like it... > >>one more thing: the way MTD is described on http://www.cs.vu.nl/~aske/mtdf.html, >>it stores both upper and lower bounds in the hashtable. making your hashtable >>smaller for a given memory size. IIRC, (but i am quite fuzzy on this...) the >>paper has comparisons of MTD with PVS for the same number of hashtable entries, >>which is the wrong number. he should have compared the algorithms with the same >>size hashtable. i never understood why you needed two bounds. i'm using one & it >>works :-) >> >>aloha >> martin
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.