Author: Frederik Tack
Date: 14:23:16 12/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
>The main point was that if you store a position in this "repetition hash table" >when you reach it in the search, you have to remove it from the table when you >back up the tree and unmake the move that led to this position. Otherwise you >get lots of false matches. Yes, i got that. Just one more quick question that got nothing to do with repetitions. I see that most engines (like yours) 'unmake' the move when backing up the tree. It seemed like a waste of performance to me, so i never unmake the move. When making the move, i just create a successor position to pass to the next level of negamax and preserve the original position. Is there any special reason for using an 'unmake' function? Isn't unmaking the move much slower then just copying the position with a simple assigment like i do? >This has some overhead, because now _every_ node >requires an add and remove operation for this table. The repetition list >eliminates the "remove operation"... Yes, but you have to loop trough the list in every node which isn't ideal for performance either. I'll just test both method's and see what works best for me.
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.