Author: Inmann Werner
Date: 12:47:03 03/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2000 at 15:39:09, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On March 30, 2000 at 15:04:09, Inmann Werner wrote: > >>On March 30, 2000 at 11:07:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >> >>>Here is mine: >>> >>>1. hash table move. >>>2. captures that don't appear to lose material using a SEE procdedure, >>>ordered from biggest gain to equal exchanges. >>>3. 2 killer moves. >>>4. up to 4 history ordered moves (history heuristic) >>>5. rest of the moves. >> >>question to 5) >>here is the rest of the non capturing moves and the "loosing capture" moves. >>Which of them should be searched first? >> >>IMHO the non capturing moves. >> >>Werner > >I don't think you should order them at all... >When the program reaches this point it will probably not find a fail high for >the current node and the sorting will only cost performance without giving much >in return. >//Peter Excuse, but I do not agree. Why should a good positional move not produce a fail high? And i do not sort. I only give the moves "values" at generation time. In search, I only look at the first 9 moves in an ordered way, the rest i pick at random. My question is: When I produce the "loosing captures" (together with all captures), I can give them a small positive or a negative value (without cost). I give them a negative value, and it works a little better than otherwise. Werner
This page took 0.01 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.