Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 13:31:04 07/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2003 at 15:44:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 04, 2003 at 11:38:09, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>On July 04, 2003 at 11:18:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On July 03, 2003 at 13:57:02, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On July 03, 2003 at 12:28:05, Ralph Stoesser wrote: >>>> >>>>>Dear chess programmers, >>>>> >>>>>What are your personal experiences with the MTD(f) search introduced by Aske >>>>>Plaat some years ago? >>>> >>>>It does not work for me as well as it does for some others. >>>> >>>>I think success will depend very much on your particular engine. >>>> >>>>Andrew Williams has a successful implementation. >>> >>>Claims to have a successful implementation is more near the truth. >>> >> >>I am a bit surprised to read this. I sincerely hope you're not claiming that I'm >>lying about my implementation? > >No i just said that you *claim* to have a successful implementation. > >I didn't say a word more or less than that. I would be the last in the world to >suggest you are a liar as everyone knows you are honest. > >I did imply however that i doubt that your implementation of MTD will use less >nodes on average when all the participants of the world champs 2003 would get >rid of the PVS that they use and use MTD instead. > Sorry Vincent, I misunderstood what you were saying. Actually, *I* didn't claim that my implementation was successful, Dann said that. I also wouldn't suggest that others should switch their successful PVS implementations to MTD. My view is that it probably doesn't make a huge difference either way, assuming you put some effort into your chosen technique. I would however reiterate the point you're making about the hashtable. It is *VERY* important to have an efficient implementation. Also, the larger the table, the better. Cheers Andrew
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.