Author: Tony Werten
Date: 01:31:40 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 02:51:17, Martin Bauer wrote: >On October 16, 2002 at 19:02:44, Antonio Dieguez wrote: > >>Just one thingy, I supose you are looking and probing the position right in the >>hashtable in respect to extensions. Normally one would look in the hash after >>doing the extension(i guess is normal) but may be you are doing something to >>save the pos wih the right depth later, I don't know. > >Yes, I make a backup of the depth at the beginning amd write this backup depth >at the end to the hashtable. Isn't this better? Because if I probe the Hash >after the extensions and then get a Hashhit, I did the extensions calculation >for nothing, am I right? You're correct. > >>also, if you dont have a separate hash for qsearch then it may not be worth to >>probe there. > >At the moment I dont use Hash in qsearch, because I noticed that there are some >problems with the depth. In qsearch my distance in negative, but then I can't >see the depth, of the calculation. Is it the natural way to fix this problem >with 2 separate Tables? Of course I can use the same Key and Index than for my >normal Table? Easiest is to store quiescence with a depth=0 and in normal search storedepth= remaining depth+1. ( of course, correct this when reading from hashtable ) Also make sure you don't "double store" last ply alpha-beta and first ply quiescence. Tony > >Can I do it like this?: > >IF (disnace < 0) THEN read/write Table2 ELSE read/write Table1; > >Of course I should write an extra qsearch function to avoid such case queryies. > >Thanks for your experience, > >Martin
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.