Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:44:03 09/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 23:46:01, scott farrell wrote: >What are people's opionions on MTD and parrallel. > >Platt states its a good idea. I think's its a good idea. > >If MTD can be shown to be - equally as good as PVS, and it scales better accross >CPU/multiple machines, it might work better the more CPU/machines added. > >I understand the problem that MTD relies more heavily on hashtable then other >algorithms, but I think they all rely on hashtables pretty heavily. > >Scott it has been done. Don D. had a parallel version of mtd(f) running and it has some interesting characteristics. But, if you have to do a bunch of the searches, it suffers from the same problem it would on a single cpu... I think this works for certain approaches only, and large positional scores are not a good idea, at least from my experience, which is not as much as several others here that are really using mtd(f).
This page took 0 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.