Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:38:27 09/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2000 at 11:06:42, Philipp Claßen wrote: >Hi! > >I want to add a extra transposition table for quiescence search to my own >program. But I´m not sure how to avoid that important entries are overwritten by >less important ones. In a normal search the distance is a good criterion but in >a quiescence search? Perhaps the current ply? > >Phil I don't store q-search nodes, although a couple of years ago I did. I don't think it will make any difference in all in performance. The cost of the probes is offset by the value of the hit, almost exactly. So doing it or not won't make you any faster. And since not doing it didn't hurt at all, I got rid of it for two reason. 1. It made the q-search code a bit simpler, and simpler is always better. 2. For big searches with small hash tables, it makes much more effective use of available memory since the q-search stuff is the majority of the nodes searched, and they don't compete for table space at all. If you want to store them, just store "depth" but let it go negative into the q-search. the first ply of q-search would be 0, the next would be -1, etc. Or you can do as I did and always store 0 which is reasonable.
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.