Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:11:07 08/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2005 at 05:15:36, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 am using it for mate_scores only. It gave me +4%. > >Ed Meaning you only update it with a move that produces a mate-in-N score???
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.