Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 11:55:32 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 13:52:38, martin fierz wrote: >On October 20, 2004 at 13:05:51, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On October 20, 2004 at 09:51:20, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>>I don't see why this would be so interesting. After all if you select by index >>>>you'll never end up with an illegal move. >>>not even if the index is larger than the number of current legal moves? :-) >> >>Actually, no, even this won't cause problems for me. > >of course you can test for it that much is clear. > >>>the real point of interest would be that you catch a hash collision because you >>>see the move is illegal. with the index scheme, you go and search some random >>>move first, instead of let's say a killer move or a winning capture. might not >>>be such a great idea... >> >>Yes, I really care for the 0.0000001% case where I get a hash collosion, not to >>mention the extreme slowdown caused by wrong move ordering at a single node. > >i was a bit confused i guess :-) > >>If you are looking for improvement I think you have your priorities all screwed >>up :) > >in fact, i'm not really planning to do it for speed reasons, rather just for >simplicity. one table instead of two. one type of hashentry instead of two. one >hashstore function instead of two. etc. > >cheers > martin one table to rule them all, and the darkness bind them . . . anthony
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.