Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:43:29 08/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 05, 1999 at 17:13:28, Tom King wrote: >On August 04, 1999 at 20:00:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >[snip] >> >> >>I find the following: >> >>using SEE to order captures in the q-search, without eliminating any, will >>shrink the tree about 10% over using something simple like MVV/LVA. But the >>SEE code will likely cost you more than 10% (unless you are a bitmap program >>where this can be done fairly efficiently). >> >>using SEE to eliminate losing captures can speed you up another 50%, or a factor >>of two, which is very significant. And no matter how slow your SEE code is, >>that become a 'winner' of an idea. > >I'm seeing a big speedup - it's just the (possible) loss of accuracy which >concerns me. Having said that, my Q search is pretty "quick and nasty" anyway, >although I do still do things like probe the hash tables. This is only my opinion, but I spend my time working on the full-width part of the search (extensions, etc.). The q-search already has _so many_ errors in it (it is highly selective since throwing out everything but captures is a drastic step, of course) that I don't trust it at all. I just want it to handle simple hung pieces and not much else... I'll trust my extensions to find the deep tactical tricks since then I won't be overlooking pins, forks, skewers, etc. When you think about it like that, shrink the q-search and use those nodes in places where they are more useful. Just an opinion, of course...
This page took 0.02 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.