Author: Michael Henderson
Date: 12:03:58 10/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2004 at 14:49:29, Michael Henderson wrote: >On October 05, 2004 at 18:41:58, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>On October 04, 2004 at 20:23:27, Don Beal wrote: >> >>>Hmmm. It's very helpful to post the actual code. >>>My time is limited though. >> >>No problem -- you've made good comments and de-lurked >>and everyone enjoys that. >> >>The bet was to decrease the WAC #141 problem down to <= 10 >>seconds without turning off the null move as one >>claimant had done. >> >>Although I am now at 49 seconds for WAC 141 solution with >>null move enabled and not limited compared to the earlier 95 >>seconds, the <= 10 bet is still open. I'll hereby double the >>bet to $100 to the first person who helps me achieve it directly. > >Hi Stuart, > >How do you handle mate scores (probe/store) in the hash table? That is a tricky >concept sometimes and can lead to bugs :) Also, if you use "bounded" mate scores >in the hash table your scores will not be exact. Exact mate scores are >necessary for the mate threat detection. > >Michael in fact, try not storing *any* mate scores in the hash table (check if within mate score range when storing). For example, if (val >= MATE-500) don't store or if (val <= -MATE+500) don't store. If you can solve WAC in good time with this then the hash tables are to blame.
This page took 0.19 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.