Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:33:30 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 11:19:17, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >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 Neither. At the root, before starting a brand new search (not a new iteration) age the counters... IE in Crafty, in "main()" I shift the counters right 8 bits (divide them by 256). This ages old history counters away over a few moves, without losing important values instantly...
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.