Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 01:58:08 08/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2005 at 00:14:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? I don't use this. -- 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.