Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 16:26:25 09/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2004 at 19:11:51, Michael Henderson wrote: >On September 19, 2004 at 18:55:25, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>On September 19, 2004 at 17:51:05, Michael Henderson wrote: >> >>>On September 19, 2004 at 17:04:14, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>>> 2) is the above normal that walking the hash gives sometimes >>>> a longer pv? >>> >>>perfectly normal since many people use hash to "extend" their PV's >>> >> >>Not sure I understand. > >The length of the PV using hash tables is variable because you don't know the >length of the PV...you just keep probing the hash until you can't get anything >useful out of it. > >for example: >triangular array PV: A B C D E >walking the hash PV: A B C D E F G > >you got move F because you probed position E and found a good move to print. >Move G from probing position F. Triangular array PV has a definite depth--search >depth limited. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> 3) I update my triangular array in the main search and the >>>> quiescence search. reasonable? >>> >>>yes. The problem with qsearch is that it's just "cleanup"--considers only >>>certain types of moves. So qsearch section of the PV might contain some stupid >>>moves you might not want to display. There's nothing wrong with knowing what >>>your qsearch is doing, though... >> >>More information is never less, to be sure. >> >>> >>>> >>>> 4) Anything else you can think of. >>> >>>Just wanted to say I like to answer your questions! >>> >>>good luck, >>>Michael >>> >> >>Ha! Hey, in 10 more years I'll be 10% of the way there. > >10% of way to understanding it? Sorry I don't get it :) > >Michael Definitely something like that. The "it" being computer chess. No -- really. I look forward to the advent of quantum computers some day and what a computer chess program for one of those might be able to play like.
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.