Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 09:27:25 07/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2003 at 03:57:23, Tim Foden wrote: >I have been using a dual-table approach >(primary depth based, secondary always replace)... Have you tried node count based instead of depth based? I thought that was shown to be a better replacement scheme. Also, when using two tables like this, if you store an entry in the depth based table, do you also store it in the always replace table? This seems like it would be wasteful as you write to both tables.
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.