Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 12:32:06 04/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2001 at 06:54:30, David Rasmussen wrote: >I know that most people (including me) do not store results in the hashtable >during Qsearch, because there are too many positions to keep, and valuable >positions closer to the root would get overwritten etc. > >But have anybody tried a seperate Qsearch hashtable? The very fact that the >Qsearch generates so many notes, and so much time is spent there, seems to >dictate that the dynamic programming principle of a trans/ref table would be >very beneficial here too. My program just has one hash table for both normal and qsearch nodes. Qsearch entries are inserted with negative draft, so they're always overwritten by normal search nodes, which have positive draft. Over the years, my program has consistently done better with this. Andrew
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.