Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 13:59:14 07/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2004 at 16:43:39, Andrew Dados wrote:
>This above has some implication in replacing schema for transposition table:
>always replace FL nodes with FH nodes for same remaining depth ('draft') because
>FL nodes are less costly to compute (cost of FH at depth=d is close to cost of
>FL at d+1).
Interesting idea. But I am not sure, if it is correct. Assume remaining depth 2
and average of 40 moves, no extensions, pruning, qsearch. In FH node, you search
one move, its 40 children, which then will call one eval. In FL node, you search
40 moves, each time one child, which will call one eval. Not?
BTW. I tried in the past exactly such a scheme. My idea was, that FH scores are
more useful, because you have a rather reliable move, that will help move
ordering. FL nodes don't have this (and really don't need moveordering). So FH
should be a bit more valuable. In practice, it did not seem to make a
difference.
Regards,
Dieter
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.