Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 10:05:51 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 09:51:20, martin fierz wrote: >>I don't see why this would be so interesting. After all if you select by index >>you'll never end up with an illegal move. >not even if the index is larger than the number of current legal moves? :-) Actually, no, even this won't cause problems for me. >the real point of interest would be that you catch a hash collision because you >see the move is illegal. with the index scheme, you go and search some random >move first, instead of let's say a killer move or a winning capture. might not >be such a great idea... Yes, I really care for the 0.0000001% case where I get a hash collosion, not to mention the extreme slowdown caused by wrong move ordering at a single node. If you are looking for improvement I think you have your priorities all screwed up :) >yes, that's an idea. i wanted to use an additional flag once for qs/main search. >the real problem IMO is that you cannot use the qsearch result in the main >search with indexes. if you have a move from the qsearch and later come to this >point in the main search, you have nothing if you have a QS-index. if you have a >QS-move it is very likely a winning capture and might be useful. This depends on the move generation used, actually. -- GCP
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.