Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:49:59 09/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2001 at 04:31:55, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 26, 2001 at 21:22:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I won't argue about erroneous evals. But at least they should be consistent. >>Here we are talking about something that will be highly inconsistent, where we >>"sniff" a fail high but then can't prove it... etc... > >The same applies to tactics near or at the leaves. We won't see them, >and they make our evals wrong in an inconsistent way. > >The problem with false fail highs exists with nullmove already anyway. > >-- >GCP That they do. But you have to _specifically_ program around this or you get burned. I haven't specifically programmed around the case of bogus hash scores...
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.