Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:15:18 06/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2004 at 23:50:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 25, 2004 at 22:19:41, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 25, 2004 at 21:24:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 25, 2004 at 16:36:19, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >>> >>>>Just a note that I got my hashing working in a >>>>quick hack program I've put together for other >>>>reasons and it was nasty even though I've been >>>>through it over and over through the decades. >>>>I empathize with other hashers who have felt or >>>>are feeling hashed. >>>> >>>>It is well worth it. A typical 8 ply search early >>>>in the game might reduce 50%+ in total nodes searched >>>>and 50%+ in total time. >>>> >>>>These are dwarfed by null move's effect though in >>>>the same positions (90% and 90%). >>>> >>>>So my question is, these are well-known methods to >>>>substantially reduce the number of nodes and amount >>>>of time for most searches -- I wonder if there is >>>>anything else that is as large and as comparable >>>>at these large 50%/90% types of reductions. >>>> >>>>Stuart >>> >>> >>>another 50% or more. Limit your q-search captures so you don't look at silly >>>captures that obviously just lose material. >> >>How is that different from an alpha/beta search of captures only? > > >Don't look at _all_ captures. Only captures that appear to have a chance of >producing something other than a fail-low (alpha cutoff)... Do you determine the probability of a good capture with SEE? Otherwise it seems you might miss obvious stuff like this: [D]1r2k1r1/pbppnp1p/1b3P2/8/Q7/B1PB1q2/P4PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxd7+;
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.