Talk:Multi-configurational self-consistent field

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid importance within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Chemistry Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

MCSCF should not be called a Post-Hartree-Fock method, it rather is an alternative to RHF. If at all, MCSCF needs RHF only to get a starting guess for the orbitals. But even that is not required. MOLPRO's MCSCF, for example, can happily converge wave functions even if the initial guesses are from atomic density guesses for the 1-RDM, completely without a Hartree-Fock calculation preceeding it.129.69.55.52

I agree. Is there anyway now where it is called a Post-Hartree-Fock method? I have just done some minor changes but also added that MCSCF can be done directly in determinants as well as with CSFs. GAMESS(US) offers both methods. --Bduke 23:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)