Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:36:01 03/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2000 at 16:23:46, Inmann Werner wrote: >On March 30, 2000 at 16:14:12, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>On March 30, 2000 at 15:47:03, Inmann Werner wrote: >> >>>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? >> >>Of course it could, but even a capture given a bad value from SEE can turn out >>to be a fail high. It's all about cost vs return of the effort, I think. For me >>it is not worth the effort (in case 5 above) to pick moves in an ordered manner. >> > >Now I can agree :-) It is a matter of cost vs return. For me, the cost is Null, >the return only little. In my tests, it is overall a little better, to try the >positional moves before, but as said, only a little... > >>>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. >> >>I do the same but only with the 3 first moves ordered. >> > >Only 3!!! I will try, but it seems "brutal" (is this also english) >So much work for move ordering, and then only use 3 moves ... :-) > >Werner Don't "sort" at all. Make a pass over the move list to pick out what appears to be the best move to try based on the history score. Do this two or three more times. Then stop with the history stuff and just take the moves in order. In computer chess, "always put off until later what you don't have to do now, because alpha/beta may make 'later' 'never'." :)
This page took 0 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.