Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:33:35 03/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2003 at 17:10:50, Uri Blass wrote: >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. I hit 64 al the time. So it's doable... > >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.