Author: Tony Werten
Date: 01:02:29 06/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2002 at 17:57:05, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On June 20, 2002 at 11:10:17, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On June 20, 2002 at 10:14:21, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >> >>>On June 20, 2002 at 06:27:56, Dan Andersson wrote: >>> >>>>You don't need to make a memory lookup in the 8x16 or the16x16 board. Thats one >>>>of the gains. >>> >>>Yep. But it also needs larger (and possibly less cache efficient) tables, for >>>example piece square tables for evaluation. Or some "translation array" at this >>>point. For typical board size tables, this may be no problem. More costly it >>>will be for a history table. >> >>There are 2 solutions for. >> >>Excuse my Delphi: trans_square:=((square and $70) shr 1) or (square and $07) >> >>or throw out your history tables because they suck anyway. >> >>Tony >> >>> >>>Regards, >>>Dieter > >What's the alternative? PieceSquare sorting? No sorting when you reach that point. You will probably need to get them all anyway. When searching 12 ply or more the history values are bogus, just taking the moves in any order gives about as much cutoffs. Tony > >Bas.
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.