Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:37:12 06/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 1998 at 09:30:58, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Amir Ban on June 25, 1998 at 03:36:32: > >>I use the same procedure Don uses: Two killers, always replace, no counters. I >>was surprised you guys think you have something better. Tests will decide, >>true, but I'm not persuaded by the verbal arguments. It seems to me that >"always replace" should be equal at least. > >Same here. Tried all types of counters and other tricks to no avail. Always >replace for Rebel is also superior. > >Like to add that the following worked for Rebel. After killer-one I use >killer-one of 2 plies back, then killer-two and finally killer-two of >2 plies back. This gave a speedup of 5% if I remember well. > >- Ed - > >>Amir that worked in Cray Blitz, but we didn't use history moves there. In Crafty, I try the two killers, then a couple of history moves, and if I haven't gotten a cutoff by then, I stop wasting time and just take moves as they were generated, to save time, since this is probably an ALL node anyway and won't get a cutoff. My only comment on the counters is that it works better for me. It did in Cray Blitz, and it does in Crafty. I tried both ways way back, but this was always a little better... I'm not sure what is meant by "extra overhead of counters" because it adds basically nothing. You don't have to "sort" with two entries.. you always replace the last, and when you get a match on the second one only, you bump the counter and possibly swap it with the first one based on the two counter values. Not exactly time consuming.
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.