Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 09:31:08 08/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2005 at 12:11:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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??? Yes, but of course only positive mates. Ed
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.