Author: Renze Steenhuisen
Date: 08:19:17 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 11:15:43, Renze Steenhuisen wrote:
>On March 16, 2004 at 11:04:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On March 16, 2004 at 04:41:40, Renze Steenhuisen wrote:
>>
>>It seems to differ from program to program.
>>
>>In diep it doesn't work at all.
>>
>>I tried many different forms of keeping track of the HH table. There is no need
>>for just [64][64] there is many different forms possible. Like for each side
>>makes already more sense.
>>
>>In diep the general killermove also hardly works. HH is probably even more a
>>'general overal killer'. In diep basically local killers who continuesly get
>>replaced work very well.
>>
>>All big slow global stuff just doesn't work for DIEP.
>>
>>I had the same result for my draughts program Napoleon.
>
>Yeah, I read your previous post on this topic from the archive but thanks
>anyway! I have tried some different things, but I am a bit puzzled.
>
>I got very good numbers for gain in move-ordering for shallow searches (say 5-7
>ply), so I tried 2 things:
ARGH! I hate it that TAB doesn't work!
1> apply HH to the subtrees with that shallow (5-7 ply) remaining depth, and
reset them for every other subtree, ofcourse
2> apply HH to the top (5-7 ply) only
It did not have the effect I thought it would have...
Any ideas on the topic? Which should be doing better anyway? Or apply them both!
Renze
This page took 0.02 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.