Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 00:39:22 12/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2000 at 23:04:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 07, 2000 at 13:20:29, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On December 06, 2000 at 16:17:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Repetition is a known hashing "issue". But in fact, it is there even when >>>you aren't thinking about a repetition... because what says that you can search >>>from the node where you get the hash hit, to the terminal node that follows >>>that deeper in the tree, without repeating something? >>> >>>It is messy. I simply ignore it. >> >>If I understand what you mean, you ignore the issue altogether right? you don't >>mean you ignore the repetition. In other words, you find a repetition, return >>DRAW from search() and also store the previous postion with score=DRAW in the >>hash table. Correct? If that is true, this is not the origin of my problem... >> >>Thanks, >>Miguel > > >This is what I do, yes. Draw scores are a problem. Some don't store them. >Dave Slate was a proponent of that approach. I _always_ stored draw scores, >and still do. Either way leads to errors. My way leads to a faster search, >however. How can not storing the draws, lead to errors, and not only ineffeiciency? A node that isnt hashed but searched, is still "correct", I gather. Whereas, a node that was stored as a draw because of repetition, and later read in a node where it isnt a repetition because of different history, will be "incorrect". Wrong?
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.