Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 11:54:29 08/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 13, 2000 at 13:37:57, Colin Frayn wrote: >On August 13, 2000 at 11:31:10, Adrien Regimbald wrote: > >>I was about to say "Yeah, I guess if you don't use anything like null move, etc >>then you could be right" .. but then I saw that you use hash tables :P I don't >>think that I have to point out to you that the very fact that you're using hash >>tables means you can't guarantee that your search is 100% accurate .. due to >>possible collisions. > >Have you seen how I do hash tables? > >*grin* I'm not sure, what the *grin* indicates, agreement or disagreement. Could you clarify? Do you hash exact positions? (unlike everyone else, except perhaps me?) >>Well, that is a very impressive gain .. but I'm curious - does it hurt ColChess >>overall to be doing this? > >Not that I'm aware of. I don't think CM testing takes up any substantial time >even in normal positions with no checkmates. Testing for CM is quickest when it >_isn't_ a CM as it only has to check a few moves. My CM routine is pretty >heavily optimised. Now, that starts to get quite interesting for the author of a mate solver. Would you care to share some details? I assume your source is not open, but I'm just interested in the CM testing. >Cheers, >Col Cheers, Heiner Marxen heiner@drb.insel.de http://www.drb.insel.de/~heiner/
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.