Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:14:32 08/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2005 at 11:49:22, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 30, 2005 at 10:53:22, Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso wrote: > >>On August 30, 2005 at 08:43:56, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2005 at 08:15:12, Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso wrote: >>> >>>>- You mean index = (from,to) pair taken from the current move at the parent >>>>node? >>> >>>Yes. >>> >>>>- In the 64x64 table do we store complete moves (as they come from the move >>>>generator) or just the (from,to) information? >>> >>>Doesn't matter. Your choice. You can test with noting the piece type that moved >>>and encforcing that, or not doing that. >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>One more thing, how do we age this entries? >>Do we simply let the search overwrite the entries? > >Why would aging be needed??? > >I guess you could make a countermove1, countermove2 etc just like one does with >killers, if you really want to... > >-- >GCP Are you using this? I remember when it came out in the JICCA several years back (don't remember exactly when). I tried it but never got any sort of improvement with it. Of course I was using killers and the history heuristic already... Are you getting a tree reduction with it?
This page took 0.01 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.