Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:31:10 02/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2001 at 16:27:29, Tony Werten wrote: >On February 01, 2001 at 14:19:25, Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso wrote: > >>Does any one tried to use just Upperbounds and Lowerbounds in hashing, ignoring >>ExactScore entries? >>My question has to do with the fact that if we use ExactScores we don´t get long >>PVs to feed in the next iteration, even if we extend PVs from hash. >>My testing shows that if we do not use ExactScore entries in the hash table, we >>end up with very long PVs that can be fed into the next iteration in order to >>aproximate the minimal tree. After all, ExactScores are rare compared to >>Upperbounds and Lowerbounds. >> >>Can someone comment on this? > >One of us is missing something. The PV is always exact. If you don't store Not really. I just get my PV out of hashtable and i don't care what kind of bound it has. Whether it is exact,<=alfa,>=beta bound i don't care, i get it out of hashtable so i always have a PV if i use hashtable! It's easy to get best line out of hashtable, it's cheap, but so is storing the PV, i don't see a big difference there! And i'm sure that Alvaro's problem is the you old dilemma which some people seem to have that you need to store it and you don't ask the hashtable anymore! Why not combine it or always get it from hashtable? Of course if there are bugs in hashtable it's pretty hard to get a good PV out of it! I'm using probes = 8, but even when searching fullwidth i get real long PVs out of it, just watch my next post Alvaro! >exact, you don't have a pv. I don't know what you get from the hashtable, but it >isn't a PV. > >I take my PV from hashtable and I (almost) always get a long pv, at least as >long as the search depth. Exactly Tony, we both don't see the problem i bet! >Tony > >> >>Thank you >>Alvaro Cardoso
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.