Author: Rafael Andrist
Date: 14:38:02 09/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2003 at 16:49:47, Uri Blass wrote: >>>2)The history ply and all the arrays in the struct that are dependent on it. >> >>That depends on how you organised your data structure. I use this history >>information only for repetition checks and for updating the PV. For me it does >>not matter if I increase the history ply or not. > >If you use it for repeptition detection then it should matter. Compare these two possibilities: 1) Array with the root of the Nullmove subtree <...> <last position before Nullmove> <position after Nullmove (only stm change and ep reset)> <first position after a real move in the Nullmove subtree> <...> 2) Array without the root of the Nullmove subtree <...> <last position before Nullmove> <first position after a real move in the Nullmove subtree> <...> If you use no. 2, increasing the history plycount introduces an error, if you use no. 1, you of course have to increase the history plycount. >>Do you have two different hashkeys, one for the table and one for repetition >>checking? > >No > >The hash key is the same hash key but I remember it as a global varaible and >also in the array after making normal moves(I should remember it in the array >also after making null moves but I forgot about it when I implemented hash >tables(If I remember correctly hash was implemented after null move). IMO you should update the hashkeys in both places and keep them synchronous. regards Rafael B. Andrist
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.