Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:38:59 04/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 01, 2004 at 18:29:27, Dann Corbit wrote: >On April 01, 2004 at 17:59:38, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On April 01, 2004 at 15:16:34, Marc Bourzutschky wrote: >> >>>The Chessmaster format is indeed better >> >>What does it mean "better"? :-) >> >>It stores less information, thus compresses better. > >I have an idea that I think would be helpful if you should be so kind as to >perform it. > >Write a scanner that reads your wonderful EGTB files and spits out a two bit >state only for each position (won/lost/drawn/broke) to create bitbase files. > >The reason I suggest it is that a bazillion programmers won't have to reinvent >the wheel. > >I suggest the use of the bitbase files early in the search (completely pulled >into ram) and then EGTB at the leaves if the bitbase indicates it is worthwhile. You must mean it the opposite way, bitbases at the leaves and EGTBs a near root? I think it would be better to use bitbases in the entire search and only use full EGTBs when the position is at the root. Or, if you want the search to eventually return mate scores, probe EGTBs when bitbases say it is won and beta>=mate_bound or bitbases says it lost and alpha<=-mate_bound. Perhaps probing directly into EGTBs when window allows it would be faster, matter of tuning of course. -S.
This page took 0.01 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.