Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:17:50 08/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 2003 at 16:24:24, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >Dan, did you also try with 2 bounds/scores per entry? I think, 2 bounds per >entry could make a depth preferred scheme looking more attractive. > >I try to give another reason, why replace always should be preferred. Assume the >situation you have one pos with high draft (more than search depth), but you >need to search the position. The only reason can be, that the TT entry has the >wrong bound (otherwise you would cutoff, and not search). Now you search to end, >and try to store in the TT. With depth preferred, you will not store it (after >all, the pos had a high draft in the beginning). You will keep that "wrong" >bound, that is basically useless now (but has an attractive looking draft). > >Regards, >Dieter After reading it I think that it is possible that is better for me to use hash table for pruning in some simple productive way. I cannot do it when the score is bigger than beta without risks but I think that I can safely do it when the score is bigger than beta+something. replace always when depth is bigger or equal may be also replaced by replacing also when the new bound is significantly bigger than the old bound. 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.