Author: martin fierz
Date: 10:52:38 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 13:05:51, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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. of course you can test for it that much is clear. >>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. i was a bit confused i guess :-) >If you are looking for improvement I think you have your priorities all screwed >up :) in fact, i'm not really planning to do it for speed reasons, rather just for simplicity. one table instead of two. one type of hashentry instead of two. one hashstore function instead of two. etc. cheers martin
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.