Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:33:46 08/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 1999 at 15:01:05, Scott Gasch wrote: >>It is a terrific help. First thing you do in Search() should be to probe the >>hash table, as a hit prevents further searching of any kind. If you find the >>position, but the depth is not sufficient to use, or the bound that was stored >>is not useful, you should still try the 'best move' that was stored in the >>hash entry, before trying any other moves at all, including captures. > >So if you get an UPPER or EXACT hit and the depth makes it not useful OR if you >get an UPPER hit and the current alpha < hash value then you should still >proceed to order the best move of the hash table first when you order the >successor moves from this position. > >However, if you get a LOWER hit there is no best move -- right? Since LOWER >hash entries come from prior fail highs I store no best move with these hash >entries. This makes sense to me because there really is no best move for fail >highs... is this the correct behavior? > >Gee, I thought hashing was pretty easy when I first wrote it but now I'm >beginning to see the complexity. > >Thanks, >Scott sounds like you are doing everything ok. And yes it is complex. and yes it introduces horribly difficult to find bugs when you screw it up. :)
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.