Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: MTD(f) and hash table size

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 14:17:50 08/17/03

Go up one level in this thread


On August 17, 2003 at 16:24:24, Dieter Buerssner wrote:

>Dan, did you also try with 2 bounds/scores per entry? I think, 2 bounds per
>entry could make a depth preferred scheme looking more attractive.
>
>I try to give another reason, why replace always should be preferred. Assume the
>situation you have one pos with high draft (more than search depth), but you
>need to search the position. The only reason can be, that the TT entry has the
>wrong bound (otherwise you would cutoff, and not search). Now you search to end,
>and try to store in the TT. With depth preferred, you will not store it (after
>all, the pos had a high draft in the beginning). You will keep that "wrong"
>bound, that is basically useless now (but has an attractive looking draft).
>
>Regards,
>Dieter

After reading it I think that it is possible
that is better for me to use hash table for pruning in some simple productive
way.

I cannot do it when the score is bigger than beta without risks but I think that
I can safely do it when the score is bigger than beta+something.

replace always when depth is bigger or equal may be also replaced by replacing
also when the new bound is significantly bigger than the old bound.

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.