Author: James Robertson
Date: 23:08:09 03/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 31, 2000 at 00:52:55, Ed Schröder wrote: >On March 31, 2000 at 00:25:23, James Robertson wrote: > >>On March 30, 2000 at 18:32:40, Robert Hyatt 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 >>> >>> >>>In my case, losing captures come first, but only because that is the way they >>>appear in the list. IE I generate captures, sift the good ones to the top, and >>>leave the lemons at the bottom. Later I generate the rest of the moves and add >>>to the list, which places them after the lemons... >> >>Have you tested to see if the move ordering could be improved? In my case I >>search: > >>Hash move >>Winning captures > >Third in Rebel is Queen promotions. Insomniac considers queen promotions as winning "captures" because they change the material balance, so the promotions go here too. In the search, Insomniac only considers Queen and Knight promotions. James > >>Equal captures > >Remaining promotions. > >Ed > >>2 Killer Moves >>Noncaptures ordered by the history table >>All captures (even the ones we already searched) ordered by the history table >> >>James
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.