Author: Larry Griffiths
Date: 10:42:26 09/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2000 at 13:38:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I have a question Bob. Should all moves be generated in a q-search, or just captures? Larry.
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.