Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:35:09 08/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2005 at 12:31:08, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 Sort of figured that part out. :)
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.