Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 23:55:22 09/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2004 at 23:54:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? Because the mate-value differs. I want my QS to return correct mate-in-x values. My best, Ed
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.