Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 05:38:41 01/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2003 at 05:36:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 23, 2003 at 03:57:45, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>Sounds like you are doing history heuristic. A couple of points (which you >>might know already): >> >>1) Make sure you have a separate history table for each colour. > >I have only one history table. >Is it important to have seperate history table for each color? > >Usually when from->to is often legal for white it is not often legal for black. > >I may also get rid of the history table in the future and I guess that there are >better alternatives for order of moves. > >I read that some programmers (like Tony Worten) found that getting rid of >history tables made their program stronger so I guess that they have other rules >to decide about order of moves that are simply better. I still do use a history table. However, I am not really convinced about its benefits. Use and Non-Use of history in Comet gives results, which don't suggest that history is a real help. In former times, before using a transposition table, a history table was much more useful than today. TT makes it basically obsolete, IMHO. OTOH, using it doesn't cost much either. So , I have it still in. I even use some similar tables called "butterfly tables", which store moves which had turned out to refute a special precdeding move at some time. The table is indexed by the preceeding move. So - ever when I find that the "preceeding move" is played I look into the refutation table to see whether there is a potentail killer for this. However, its effects aren't sensational either. BTW, this is not my invention, but had been suggested by 2 Dutch authors (iirc, Hartman - the author of dappet and some co-author) a lot of years ago. Uli > >I have only one 64*64 array like tscp. > >Uri
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.