Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 07:50:41 03/31/00
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
I went to my code to see(!) and would like to give some clarification.
In fact the number is 3-6 depending on the number of moves already tried when
reaching this point ("rest of the moves").
Few moves tried -> pick 6 first ordered
Many moves tries -> pick 3 first ordered
Pick all the rest unordered.
Hash move and Killer moves are heavier weighted than captures when I count the
moves.
//Peter
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.