Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: One Reply Extension

Author: Will Singleton

Date: 20:44:15 02/20/99

Go up one level in this thread


On February 20, 1999 at 22:15:07, Nobuhiro Yoshimura wrote:

>n February 20, 1999 at 22:03:33, Will Singleton wrote:
>
>>On February 20, 1999 at 21:31:13, Nobuhiro Yoshimura wrote:
>>
>>>I have a question for how other programmers are  implementing it.
>>>When we use iterative-deeping and transposition table, it is very likely
>>>to get a good move from a hash table.   Since we get the move without
>>>calling a move-generator and start searching, I have no idea whether or
>>>not the node has only one move.
>>>
>>>How do you know ?
>>>Do you call a special check routine in order to know the node has a sinlge move
>>>when king in check?
>>
>>
>>I was just going to address this issue in my program, so I'm glad you brought it
>>up.  I use pseudo-moves to get out of check (king-moves and interposes), so I
>>don't know whether there's one reply or not.  So I'm thinking of changing back
>>to the way I used to do it, which is a special get-out-of-check routine that
>>only gives legal moves.  I thought it was slow, but maybe it will be worthwhile.
>>
>>But I don't allow hash probes when in check (or killers or anything else), so I
>>always call the generator.  If your generator gives legal rather than
>>pseudo-legal, then you might try that.
>>
>
>What is the reason not using the hash move when you in check?


Hmm, good question.  I just removed that restriction and it saved a few nodes,
otherwise works the same.  It must have been a holdover from when I was doing a
different kind of search.  Now it's pseudo-legal, so hash moves are ok.

Will



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.