Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:51:11 09/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 17:43:15, martin fierz wrote: >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... who stores a bound in 2 bytes? Why not in 1 bit? >> >>>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.