Author: Carmelo Calzerano
Date: 05:55:23 02/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2001 at 06:09:02, Larry Griffiths wrote: >It looks more like this, Bob. >BestScoreSoFar=alpha > >for(do capture moves) [snip] > return BestScoreSoFar; (It seems to be ok) >>>I see all three types added to my hash table, but it seems that the >>>upper_bound entries never cause any cutoffs to occur when searching >>>the hash table. >>> >>>If I do not add lower_bound hash table entries, then I see some >>>upper_bound cutoffs occuring. It acts like the upper_bound entries >>>get overlayed so often by lower_bound entries so that they never >>>get seen when searching the hash table. >>>Is this normal, or is something wrong with my code? I guess it's normal, although you should definitely see some upper_bound cutoffs from time to time. Matter is that the number of fail-high nodes (which stores lower bounds in the HT) is usually about one order of magnitude _bigger_ than the number of fail-low nodes visited in search; so upper_bound HT entries are often replaced by lower_bound ones. So it should be normal, IMHO, if lower_bound cutoffs occur more often (say 10 times, for example) than upper_bound ones; but the number of upper_bound cutoffs should not be zero anyway... :-) Bye, Carmelo
This page took 0.01 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.