Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:24:48 03/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 08, 2001 at 10:23:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: I have now done some testing. First, a programming issue. If you call Quiesce() note that tree->sort_value is used to sort the captures. I use this same array to sort the root moves. So as you call Quiesce() you will corrupt the values you have already found for the first few root moves. The solution is to declare a local sort_value[256] array and change _all_ references to tree->sort_value to just sort_value. After you do that you will find that the search is no faster than before, as the original sorting scheme was very accurate. The plus for using Quiesce() is that the code is a bit shorter however, but it is also a tiny bit slower as the q-search is a bit slower than the way I was sorting the moves before. Basically it is a break-even proposition. No big savings or loss at all, over a 24 problem test comparison... Bob
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.