Author: Pham Minh Tri
Date: 18:04:05 03/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 08, 2001 at 11:24:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 I agree that use of Quiesce in this case makes some problems. Actually, I have just rewritten another function of Quiesce for that purpose - it means no savings of code compare with yours. However, it is easier for me to manage it. And when I try it with much more games, the time savings drop to around 5-10%, up to games, not big as my first result, but still worth to try.
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.