xsadar wrote:
Ok. I guess I did a poor job of reading Uri's description. It does indeed sound like he's passing path information toward the leaf nodes. But it also seems to me that you could get the exact same results -- but without the hash issue -- by only passing path information back toward the root.
I see no way that you can get the exact same results without the hash issue.
What you suggest is clearly different then what I do.
My idea was simply comparing evaluation at the leaves to evaluation of what happened 2 plies earlier or 4 plies earlier.
I took even number of plies because I want to compare between evaluations when the same side is to move(I relatively do not trust my evaluation to be correct about improvement in the position if it is not the same side to move).
You compare search results with static evaluation so you may often not have the same side to move(even if you search to even depth extensions or pruning may mean that you practically compare difference of odd number of plies).
Uri
Yes my original example is based on my initial poor reading of what you said. And I agree that comparing odd numbered plies to even numbered plies (as I did in my incorrect example) won't work. Taking that into account, I had thought that it could still be done without passing information toward the leaves, but the extension issue you mention does indeed present problems, and I think the qsearch does even more so; meaning that even if it's possible it may not be plausible. So, sorry; I guess I didn't really think it through completely.
