Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:08:31 01/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2002 at 12:11:55, David Hanley wrote: >On January 16, 2002 at 09:24:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>Not quite. Now you miss repetitions that you would find by hashing, because >>hashing often lets you see deeper (due to branch grafting) than the basic >>search can see by itself. You lose some either way. Best to fully do hashing >>and tolerate the few problems there... >> > >I'm probably being obtuse, but i'm not clear how this matters. It seems to me >that to trigger this case, you'd have to have the same position occur twice in >the search tree. Ok, but it's the same position, and it leads to a win. When >to-move gets to it the second time, he can refuse the third repeat, and play the >winning line. > >dave But suppose you have _already_ repeated it twice? You entered this line thinking the score was +x.xx due to the hash entry but before you reach that +x.xx position you are forced to step thru a 0.00 position that ends the game instantly... and incorrectly according to the hash score of +x.xx
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.