fixing CPW-engine

[hgm]

The difference seems to be that static null-move pruning uses the exact evaluation, while normal futility pruning guesses it from the evaluation in the parent plus an estimate for the gain of the current move. But as in both cases you use a significant margin, which is an arbitrary guess anyway, I wonder if it would buy you anything at all using an exact evaluation here.

Furthermore, in the examples you give here eval gets alpha and beta passed, suggesting it could do a lazy eval if it is far outside the window, which would erase the difference almost completely.

[cdani]

Hi!
I compiled it for 32 and 64 bit windows:
http://www.andscacs.com/cpw/cpw1.1.rar

The file contains also the vc2010 solution.

[velmarin]

Given the representation of the board(0x88),
just an executable, it's the same performance.

Gracias, Daniel José.

[cdani]

Given the representation of the board(0x88),
just an executable, it's the same performance.

Gracias, Daniel José.

Yes!

[PK]

I have just uploaded Daniel's execuables on GitHub. Thank You for supplying them!

[op12no2]

Code: Select all

if ( depth == 0 ) return Quiesce( alpha, beta );

 sd.nodes ++;

if ( isRepetition() ) return contempt();

The CPW engine gave me the 'shape' for my engine, thank you both very much for it; it is also very easy to read.

I was wondering about the above. Will that miss some repetitions, because it went into Q in a repetition situation...? (No rep test in Q).