Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:36:58 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 10:22:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 06:58:41, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On September 02, 2002 at 19:33:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Near the tips of the tree? traditional killers, captures, whatever, works >>>quite well out there... about as well as hashing, since the depths will be >>>so shallow... >> >>If you do them, yes. But IIRC, the DB hardware had no killers, just >>MVV/LVA captures. >> >>-- >>GCP > > >I actually don't remember whether it does or not, but I suspect not. But >captures are _the_ most common refutation move anyway. I would never argue >that their alpha/beta hardware search is as good as a software alpha/beta >search, for lots of reasons. But if all you are doing 99.9% of the time, >is just proving that a score is >X or <X, then no re-searches are needed, and >efficiency is not an issue whatsoever with respect to hashing. Hasing is clearly important to prove that the score is >x or <x and the same for killers. Without them you may often start with the wrong move in your search. Uri
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.