Author: Koundinya Veluri
Date: 11:31:17 08/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 2001 at 23:28:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 17, 2001 at 15:16:54, Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso wrote: > >>Only now I've implemented the trick of avoiding generating any moves by >>searching the hash move first (if there is one) and bailing out early if this >>move causes a fail high. >>Now, I just don't get the same node counts. I get tree size reductions. >>This is a bug right? >>I should get exactly the same node count, just a litle faster right? >> >>Help appreciated, >>Alvaro Cardoso > > >Node count should not change. You did take care of the issue that once >you search the hash move and get no cutoff, you then generate moves and >you do _not_ search the hash move a second time? If you do, that can >change the node counts... What about extensions for forced moves? When there's only one check escape, I extend the search, but this extension is not stored in the hash table and I cannot confirm that the hash move is a forced move without generating any moves. So in this case, if the hash move is tried before generating check escapes, it would not be searched to the same depth (hence changing the node counts). Or should I always generate check escapes before trying any moves to avoid this situation? Koundinya
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.