Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 17:23:12 12/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2000 at 19:36:05, Steve Maughan wrote: >Heiner, > >>OTOH, a general assumption underlying all this searching business is >>that deeper searches generally produce better (more accurate) results. >>I.e. if we alrady have an even more correct result than the one the normal >>search would yield, we tend to to happily accept that, and we do expect >>to improve by this. Right? > >Yes. This is why when one raises alpha one must also cut the PV. I do not understand the "cutting the PV" part. Do you mean such a PV ends with a "<HT>" TT-hit instead of more moves? Maybe I should reread the corresponding part in Ernst's excellent book. Maybe you should also do that ;-) > What is >really happening is the deeper search info is being graphted onto the search. Graphted? Typo? >>Of course you could restrict TT hits to only occur if the draft exactly >>matches the depth. I suspect that would reduce the benefit from the TT >>in most cases, and quite drastically so in some cases (like the famous Fine >70). > >Yes I'm sure there's scope for fiddling when Depth = Hash Depth. > >>Do you really exclude TT entries with a larger draft? > >I'm not sure what you mean. I mean: Do you really not use the value from a TT entry if the depth stored in the TT entry is larger than the depth demanded by the search? >I think I'm finally started to get my head rpound this issue - it's being vexing >me for days!! I know that feeling! Do not give up! Draw some pictures. Construct a minimal demo case. etc Most of the time finally I find out that things are quite simple, and the complex part was a misunderstanding ;-) Cheers, and a happy new year! (Here around it is already 2:10am) Heiner
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.