Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 13:21:45 04/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2001 at 15:32:06, Andrew Williams wrote: >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 Oops. Not being clear at all here. My program has always-store and depth-preferred HTs. Obviously, qsearch nodes can wipe out anything in the AS table, but effectively the DP table is reserved for pre-quiesce nodes. Hope this makes sense. 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.