Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Extended futility pruning and hashtables

Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto

Date: 11:46:44 01/02/00

Go up one level in this thread


On January 02, 2000 at 06:43:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On January 01, 2000 at 10:56:56, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>
>>On December 31, 1999 at 11:53:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>>>b) I understand that just storing the values into the transposition table is
>>>>deadly (e.g. having to research after a fail-low would yield garbage), and
>>>>this is mentioned in the paper, but how should this optimally be handled then?
>>>>Just not storing anything in the ttable seems rather radical.
>>>
>>>Indeed. The more efficient your search is (so the smaller your fliprate
>>>which i defined as the chance that a node which was stored as < beta
>>>in transpositiontable now becomes >= beta), the less likely such
>>>dubious things as futitily pruning will work for you.
>>
[snip]

>So i'm talking here about 2 different points
>  - testmethod
>  - efficiency of search

I've understood what you mean, Vincent, but I just don't see what
this has to do with my _hashtable_ problem...

(which Ernst has solved in the meantime)

--
GCP



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.