Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:54:18 09/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2004 at 17:39:45, Ed Schröder wrote: >On September 12, 2004 at 13:22:52, José Carlos wrote: > >>On September 12, 2004 at 06:50:50, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On September 11, 2004 at 11:47:35, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>On September 10, 2004 at 21:35:58, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >>>> >>>>>I read, somewhere, and I forget who, about >>>>>if 1 legal move, extend 2 ply, >>>>>2 or more legal moves, then 1 ply. >>>>>Anyone have any stats on the effects >>>>>on play of the above instead of >>>>>always extend 1 legal move. Does it >>>>>blow up? >>> >>> >>>> I guess you read it in Ed's programming page about Rebel. He does that in >>>>qsearch, and regarding checking moves generation. >>>> I tried his idea in my private program and it didn't work for me. It generated >>>>too many nodes, but I probably did something wrong. >>> >>>Checks in QS works provided you hash in QS. With exploding checks hash >>>move-ordering is crucial. >>> >>>My best, >>> >>>Ed > >> I thought of this too. The problem I couldn't solve (properly) was about >>draft. When I tried hashing qsearch in Averno (no checks in qsearch), I simply >>stored those positions with draft = 0, as they're all equivalent. >> But when I tried in my other program (with checks according to your schema) I >>couldn't use 0 as draft as remaining check-depth was important in order to give >>a cutoff. I had two options: use draft 0 and only to store a move (no cutoff) or >>create a different hash table only for qsearch with checks. After check-depth >>was zero, I used again the main transposition table with draft = 0. >> I tried the latter and didn't work well. I should probably try using it only >>for move ordering, with draft = 0. > >In my baby the draft in QS simply becomes negative, so -1, -2 etc. You can't do >the same? > >Ed You should avoid letting it go negative. Is there any difference from a hit two moves deep into the q-search vs 4 moves deep? IE can you consider moves at ply=2 that you can't consider at ply=4 in the q-search? If not, why restrict it so that ply=2 probe can't use a position stored at ply=4 elsewhere?
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.