Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:22:18 12/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2000 at 18:36:58, David Rasmussen wrote: >On December 09, 2000 at 15:08:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 09, 2000 at 03:39:22, David Rasmussen wrote: >> >>>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? >> >> >>Wrong either way. Imagine you search from position A down a path, to reach >>position B which you store in the hash table as +.2... Suppose you search down >>a _different_ path from A with maybe more moves in it, and _still_ reach >>position B. If you use that +.2, you are in danger of using a wrong eval, >>because that eval from position B was produced by searching beyond B to some >>endpoint before you got a score. How can you be sure that this different >>path doesn't repeat before reaching that endpoint? You can't. IE it is >>possible that a position between the current path connecting A to B repeats >>a position between B and the actual endpoint. That didn't happen in the >>original search path from A to B to endpoint. >> >> >>You get errors either way, because you are hashing a position, and _not_ a >>path to that position. The latter would solve the problem, but drastically >>cut down the efficiency of the hash table due to fewer hits... > >I see now. You are, of course, right. >As you might have suspected... ;) After debugging this kind of problem more than once, it becomes pretty easy to remember. :)
This page took 0.03 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.