Author: James Robertson
Date: 17:42:40 02/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 1999 at 02:26:49, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On February 05, 1999 at 00:27:05, James Robertson wrote: > >>You must be waving magic dust on your program. Here are some results from my >>program on the 11 positions in the nolot test. The null move doesn't seem to >>have tremendous advantage, although in several cases it was substantially >>better. Thrice the null move took more time than without. >> >>I ran each position for one minute on my P233, and recorded the times for the >>last completed ply. No hash tables, but pawn hash was 1MB. > >I looked at your times and you have to be doing something totally wrong. > >You get into a node, you check the hash and cut off if necessary, and if you >aren't in check you do a search that's two plies shallower than you'd ordinarily >go here (go into quiescence if appropriate), and if you come back >= beta, you >cut off. This should be a very common case. If you don't cut off, you just >generate moves and search them. > >Works like a charm right away. > >bruce I honestly do not know what I am doing wrong.... do you mind if I send you my search function and if you could look for some bug in it? Thanks for any help, James
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.