🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <59lo5g$9oj@tuegate.tue.nl>,
Marcel van Kervinck <buex95a@asterix.urc.tue.nl> wrote:
>Robert Hyatt (hyatt@cis.uab.edu) wrote:
>> In short, you are looking at the wrong place to speed things up.  The
>> selection sort is a negligible part of the total search time.  Trying to
>> shave it further, at the expense of even slightly worse move ordering is not
>> going to pay dividends...  1% faster sorting is quickly swamped by a 2%
>> larger tree...
>
>This weekend I just ran a few tests again. At least in my program there
>doesn't seem to be a significant difference between using the 'latest'
>history values and the 'old' history values. Doesn't mean other programs
>won't benefit, ofcourse...
>
>	Marcel
>--  _   _
>  _| |_|_|
> |_    |_     Marcel van Kervinck
>         |_|  buex95a@urc.tue.nl

Same here, I tried this very briefly in my program as well... it helps a
little in some positions, hurts others.  Using the latest history values
would be the "logical" choice in a program using history tables, but it
doesn't seem to give any significant results.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 manohar@ecf.utoronto.ca | 3rd year Comp Eng., University of Toronto     
 Valavan Manohararajah   | 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------