Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Killer and history

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 11:41:06 06/25/98

Go up one level in this thread


On June 25, 1998 at 10:37:12, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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.

The counter idea is not very complicated but DOES require more logic
and more memory.  That's what I mean by more overhead.

But the bottom line is that the two appear to be more or less equivalent
in terms of results so I will probably stay with the simpler algorithm
which is also more logical I believe.   I'm all in favor of simplification!

- Don



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.