Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:07:02 09/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 1999 at 12:58:13, Bruce Moreland wrote: >Store all mate scores as bounds and see what happens. I'll tell you what will >happen. You'll find this in a few seconds and there won't be any bugs. > >bruce It didn't help a bit, unless I modified the bounds as I mentioned. I was always updating a true mate score, and getting rid of this didn't help a bit, as I expected when playing around yesterday. The problem was those "mate in N" bounds that get stored... they can be wrong if they aren't adjusted. I now store true mate scores as always, but mate bounds are reduced to just say "< -MATE+300 or > MATE-300. I use 300 because of the large tablebase mate scores that get stored. But I am still storing actual mate scores as I have never had a problem with that (i adjust them to mate-in-N from the current ply of course.) But those bound mates were causing this particular problem to blow up, because I would store > MATE-10 (mate in 5) at position X, ply 8, then look that up at ply=10 or 12 and make a wrong decision. It was _very_ hard to find in a tree of 1M nodes...
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.