Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:18:40 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 22:44:28, Russell Reagan wrote: >On August 20, 2002 at 21:52:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>That's backward. A hash hit near the root saves a _huge_ amount of work. >>Just think how big the sub-tree is one ply away from the root, compared to >>the sub-tree one ply away from a tip position... > >His concern was that a false hash hit near the root would cause a blunder. If >you didn't probe for the first (say) 2 plies, you'd still get that same result >from the hash hit you got at ply 3, right? Maybe I'm not thinking about it >correctly, but as far as I can tell, the only *extra* work you're doing here is >a 2 ply search, which is nothing. Unless I'm missing something (which wouldn't >be the first time...) > >Russell You are doing a (say) 12 ply search. If you probe at ply=2 you might get a false hit, or not. But if you get a hit of any kind, you stop that branch at ply=2 and avoid a 11 ply search. That is a _lot_ of work to avoid...
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.