Author: Martin Giepmans
Date: 16:17:47 08/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2001 at 17:18:02, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On August 08, 2001 at 16:43:39, Martin Giepmans wrote: > >>Yes, I see your point. Now the question is: is there always pollution? >>I think 2 conditions are necessary: >>(1) The score (+0.20) is influenced by a drawscore that is based on *external* >>repetition. >>(There is no problem with the influence of internal repetition) > >No, this is false. You can get to the same position at the same depth in the >same iteration, and have subsequent moves with different repetition >consequences. > I don't see how this could have a negative effect, if you do not use cutoffs based on drawscores from the hashtable. >>(2) The influenced score is stored in the hashtable and used in the next >>calculation, after the opponent has moved. >>(There is no problem if the scores are used in this calculation) >> >>Proposition: Cutting off based on "old" hashtable scores is nonsense. >> >>Rip it out! :) >>(I did) > >Put it back. Even if your first contention were correct, is an unstable large >tree worse than a stable smaller one? > >The winner in a hot-dog eating competition is not necessarily the most >fastidious. A certain amount of mustard in your hair is alright if you get the >most dogs down. > >bruce > >> >>Martin Well yes, but is the tree really smaller? In the endgame the program with "old cutoffs" is sometimes faster, sometimes slower. Overall the gain is not clear. In the middlegame there is usually no significant difference, but in some of my testpositions the old stuff slows the program down and the output shows instability. Too much mustard on the hotdogs perhaps ... Of course a lot depends on the environment (eval etc.). Maybe program A benifits from old cutoffs and program B doesn't benifit. That's always the problem. Martin
This page took 0.01 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.