🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JON.93Jan25110340@cas.org> jon@cas.org (Jon Vander Hill) writes:
>>>>>> On 22 Jan 93 07:34:07 GMT, lim@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim) said:
>
>> In article <C15r40.D1r@sju.edu> tmoody@sju.edu (T. Moody) writes:
>>>
>>>My real problem is with (b).  Levy and Newborn say
>>>something about searching at a given level and storing lots of positions
>>>in a hash table before moving to the next level.  Is this the only way
>>>to do it?  I don't know a thing about hash tables and, from what I have
>>>read it looks like it's over my head.
>>>
>>>So my question is, can iterative deepening be usefully (if not
>>>optimally) accomplished without using hash tables?
>
>> Iterative deepening is commonly used with transposition (hash) tables,
>> but it doesn't require them.  Iterative deepening just means increasing
>> the search depth by one each time (i.e. - searching to a depth of 1,
>> then 2, then 3, ...).  You don't need to use transposition tables.
>> They are just used to speed things up, because many of the same nodes
>> are encountered again when you search to depth n+1.
>
>One the the more expensive routines in a chess programs is the
>move generation function.  The transposition table limits the
>number of times that move generation is called to once per position.
				                   ^^^^^
Um, I don't think that this is so.  From the aritcles I've read and
the source code I've seen, the "typical" transposition table entry
has the best move for a position, but *not* all the pseudo-legal
moves for that position. So it's possible that the stored bounds
and stored move doesn't cause a cutoff, thus the legal moves for
the current position may have to be generated *again*.

I guess that in general the move generation function may not be called
more that once per pos, but it certainly doesn't limit the calls to
once per position.