Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 15:24:45 01/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 1998 at 17:13:06, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >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 My quiescence function isn't void but for the sake of brevity was listed as so. Sorry for the confusion brevity created. Anyway, I think the test results show that for short 6-ply searches, doing quiescence beyond the full-width depth before tranposition table probes is better than after transposition table probes. I can run the full suite but think I'd find the same thing. I don't know why Bob Hyatt's result would be different.
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.