Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:42:15 07/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2003 at 19:08:50, Uri Blass wrote: >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. You do not plan to show up at any world champs you said and you for sure aren't a commercial engine and no one i know at least has any intention to take your grande offer to cooperate with you in order to use your creative ideas like playing for the book 1.h3 as a matter of a test. So why the hell would i mean you? On the other hands what the others tell is very clear. > >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.