Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 14:13:06 01/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 1998 at 16:42:12, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On January 20, 1998 at 16:36:09, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>When I wrote my other response, I misunderstood what you meant. >> >>What happens if you do this for 20 different positions? >> >>Maybe it works for you. >> >>bruce > >The results of the first 20 positions from Win-at-Chess each searched >to 6 ply, excepting mates, is posted elsewhere on this thread. I don't >know why you haven't been able to see it yet. > >Anyway, the result was 10,000 more nodes (out of a quarter-million), >but an improvement in search rate more than sufficient to offset this >and result in a 10% timing improvement for the whole set. > >As for rehashing comparing linear vs. random, I haven't had time to do >that one yet. I messed up, I didn't see the "20", and I just picked that number at random later, and it was the same one you'd actually picked. I think that I should admit that I didn't understand your original post and I don't understand the source code you provided later. I don't know why "quiescence" is a void function and I don't know what use it is to probe the hash table after calling it. But if it works, by all means keep doing it. bruce
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.