Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 13:16:04 09/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2004 at 15:19:37, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 19, 2004 at 14:59:08, Pallav Nawani wrote: > >>On September 19, 2004 at 04:11:43, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On September 18, 2004 at 19:43:55, Andrew Platt wrote: >>> >>> >>>>then you are always starting a new ply and you aren't losing any information. In >>>>fact, if you don't do this you have a problem because you have information >>>>relating to a *previous* move in the PV. Resetting the PV at this ply won't >>>>cause the information already backed up from the previously tried moves. >>> >>>Yes my logic is a bit different, the child PV is not copied until the end. >>> >> >>Interesting. Any particular reason why you don't update the PV immediately? >> >>Regds, >>Pallav > >Bumming code. The instructions get run less by not updating it more. That's what it's all about, isn't it :) >I see the attraction of the idea but won't implement it. > >As they say, chose to opimize after you have all the functionality you >want. Not before or during. I think you should keep what you have if it works, it does win back a little because you can do without some of the termination checks. -S. >Stuart
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.