Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 19:52:25 01/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 1998 at 19:21:48, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On January 20, 1998 at 18:43:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I'm sorry, but this is insane. What is the purpose of doing a hash >>probe? >>To eliminate searching the positions you already know the outcome of, >>right? >> >>But instead, you are searching *first* and then looking up *second*? Of >>what use is that lookup? You have already done the search.. So throw >>that >>lookup out and go even faster, because it can't possibly provide any >>info >>that the search you just completed did. > >You are making the same mistake that I did. The pseudo-code isn't doing >what you think it is doing. > >If he's in search, and is at depth < 0 (or whatever), he's calling >quiescent search and *returning* that value. > >So what this boils down to is that he's not doing a hash probe at the >root of quiescent search. Whether or not he's doing hash probles inside >quies (even at the root, which would mean doing it twice), I don't know. > >Before you say, of course it makes sense to not hash quiescent nodes, I >think this varies from program to program. > >bruce That's right. I don't do hash probes in the quiescence search at all nor before the call to the quiescence subroutine in the full-width routine when depth <= 0. Most people probably do something like
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.