Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:08:50 07/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2003 at 18:42:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 04, 2003 at 16:33:50, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. >> >>1)I do not think that the question if you have succesful implementation is >>dependent on what other do. >>Succesful implementation is something that is better than what you did >>before doing it. >> >>2)You cannot know what other are going to do. >>You even cannot know the list of the participants because some participants may >>decide only later if to participate so >>"all the participants of the world champs 2003 would get rid of the PVS... " has >>no basis. >> >>Uri > >We can get lengthy discussions, but did you read what i wrote about Aske Plaat? > >He could *never* have concluded that at a 512 processor origin MTD worked for >him. > >It is impossible that it *ever* works there for sure. > >Even those who have implemented MTD agree. > >Now second thing is. Some programs MTD won't work for sure because they use Pawn >=1000. Ok end of story for those programs. They are forced to use PVS. > >then we keep left with a big group of programs pawn=100. carefully skipping >fritz of course which is doing some sort of combination PVS with sometimes >skipping plies using a single bound. Though that isn't exactly MTD, it sure >isn't using enough to call it MTD. > >Now we know from all the commercial guys that they have extensively experimented >with all search algorithms. How do you know? I do not know. personally I do not plan even to try mtd. It does not mean that I do not plan to try better search algorithm but mtd is not one of them. I only said that it is possible that mtd can be an improvement for some people. It does not mean that it can be an improvement for the commercial programs. Uri
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.