Michael Petch wrote:
>
>
> On 01/09/09 10:26 PM, "Michael Petch" wrote:
>
>
> On 01/09/09 5:22 PM, "Michael Petch" wrote:
>
> I haven’t provided the output, but I ran 0,1,2,3 plies (Same
> filter and other settings). In those instances Cache Evals = No
> Cached evals, which leads me to believe we still have an issue
> with plies>3 with caching that hasn’t been discovered. I will
> look at the code more tonight and if I see anything I’ll let
> people know. My guess is we have missed something small
> somewhere (I hope).
>
>
> It appears we may be dealing with an optimization issue. Stay tuned.
>
>
>
> Its not optimizations. I can’t reproduce the problems now. I know there
> is something that will cause it, I just don’t know what it was (So I am
> positive there is a bug, I just can’t reproduce it). I am betting it has
> to do with Pruning analysis options.
>
> On a side note can someone briefly explain “fTop” variable. There is an
> inline comment in eval.c from a few years ago that fTop should be in the
> cache but there were no available bits.
Maybe it's a flag to show that it's the initial position being evaluated? I'm
guessing because I haven't looked at the code in detail.
Jon
_________________________________________________________________
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/167688463/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
