Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 14:41:06 07/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2004 at 16:59:14, Dieter Buerssner wrote:
>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
^ *ONE* move - this is assuming you have that FH move in TT (or it is an
easy capture). Now if you put 40 FL nodes in TT one may replace that PRECIOUS FH
and you may have to search 5 moves * 39 children instead :)
>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.
I remember it made good difference in small(saturated during search) TT sizes
for me.
Of course hashing in qsearch, multi-probe TT and few other factors can yield so
typical 'YMMV result' for other engines.
>
>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.