Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 02:40:07 01/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2004 at 21:41:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 19, 2004 at 20:09:08, Sune Fischer wrote: > >> >>How can it be nonsense? > >Same way I described previously. You reach positions that were not searched >with the same "criteria" as when the PV was searched... So? My evaluation is not path dependent either. Are you saying a 5 ply PV on position X is good, but when we later in some other parts of the tree search X with ply 5 or above the PV will be nonsense? I think you need to explain that to me very carefully. >>Let's say you pick up a single pv move and then qsearch is called. >>That would end the pv. >> >>The pv might lead to a bad position now, but it can't be considered nonsense >>when you know what your qsearch can and can't resolve. > >If you don't hash the q-search, then obviously the PV will _never_ have any >q-search captures in it. I wouldn't want it to, I want to know where the search ends and qsearch begins. That is important if you want to interpret the PV correctly. >But when I was doing this, I did hash in the q-search. >The same problem arises irregardless. Prior to the q-search, you can overwrite >stuff. When you probe for "imaginary" positions beyond the end of the current >hash-table-hit position, you can get anything. Good moves. Moves that don't >go with the current PV. And with today's Crafty I would get no q-search moves >at all, and they are often critical to see. I suspect your search is broken then. If you terminate a leaf position because you've run out of depth and you have in hash that position stored with a decent depth, why not use that information to get a more accurate score back down the tree? Something is fishy here. -S.
This page took 0.02 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.