Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:43:22 11/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2001 at 15:35:57, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >You make it sound like if a bad score is somewhere in the hash table, that bad >score will be reported by the search. > >I.e., I don't see why a solid position would give you a bad score just because a >mistake was made later. > >-Tom I suppose you missed the point of the discussion? Searching from back to front will move the detection of a bad move back from position A (the point where the search can find that things are bad with no help) toward position B (the point were a bad move was actually played in the game.) If you analyze front-to-back, you find the problem at move A every time, where the depth is predictable because you know how deeply the engine can search and how the extensions work. If you analyze back-to-front, some scores persist in the hash and move the "bad move here" indication back a few moves prior to A. How far? Varies based on hash table size, what gets overwritten by chance, etc. I'm not saying _either_ is better or worse than the other. I'm simply saying front-to-back is _consistent_ while back-to-front is not.
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.