Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Buggy check extensions, back to square one =(.

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 14:10:50 03/20/03

Go up one level in this thread


On March 20, 2003 at 14:49:41, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On March 20, 2003 at 12:17:23, Albert Bertilsson wrote:
>
>>Hi everybody!
>>
>>For those of you with a good memory you probably saw my posts about WAC, and
>>that I implemented check extensions and got a really nice improvement.
>>
>>After playing some 150 games with about 10 lockups I also know that my
>>extensions aren't bug free =(.
>>
>>In my stupidity I thought that all that needs to be done to get extensions work
>>is to add this:
>>
>>First in Alpha-Beta:
>>if (CurrentPly >= MAXPLY) return Eval();
>
>That might not be good enough if you have arrays dimensioned for xxx[MAXPLY].
>
>As when you get to MAXPLY you are already one beyond the array bounds and that
>can wreck things badly...

The question is what is MAXPLY

If you choose MAXPLY=100 and have only one ply extension for checks then I do
not see a practical case when you get close to the limit.

My limit is 100 and inspite of the fact that I may do even more than one ply
extension for checks I do not know about a position when I get close to that
limit.

The problem was a practical problem and the question is if
increasing maxply solve it.

I may consider limiting the ply based on the iteration(it is an idea that I did
not try) but I see no reason to limit the depth by a small number like 30 or 40
plies.

Uri



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.