Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Couple of chess programming questions: another MTD drawback

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,
>>>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 :-)
>>>  martin

This page took 0.04 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.