Author: Sean Empey
Date: 15:49:48 07/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2004 at 18:14:48, Laurens Winkelhagen wrote:
>On July 15, 2004 at 17:41:06, Andrew Dados wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>
>What does YMMV stand for?
>
>Thanx, Laurens.
Your Mileage May Very
>
>>
>>>
>>>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.