Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:39:18 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2001 at 11:19:08, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 04, 2001 at 10:41:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: ><snipped> >>There are other possible explanations here too. >> >>The most likely is that the first search you gave produced a score for depth >>16. It started on depth=17 but failed to produce a score/move before it timed >>out. > >This explanation does not seem to be correct. >The score of deeper blue was clearly lower after trading queens. > >It is known that programs after failing low use more time and I do not see that >deeper blue used more time for Qxf1. >It used only 168 seconds for Qxf1 based on the logfile. > >Another point is the fact that the score was no constant in the first iterations >after Qxf1 Rxf1. >I expect constant score in the first iterations if the score is based on >previous search. > >Uri Doesn't mean that is what it is doing. You search to depth=16 and get a score of (say) +.01 you start the depth=17 search, which is going to drop the score to -.5, but you don't have time to get the move back. you make the move and start pondering. _instantly_ you find the -.5 score as it is left in the transposition table from the search that timed out. I see this reasonably often enough on ICC. And as I said, I do _no_ root processing of any kind except to enable/disable the trojan check. The score doesn't have to be constant as the hash entry could be a fail high or a fail low that influences the score without setting it absolutely.
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.