Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 11:50:59 08/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
>Think about this: which move would you trust as being "best"... a move >near the root that failed high, or a root near the tip that failed hi? Using >depth^2 (where depth is the number of plies remaining before quiescence) >tends to favor moves near the root. Yes, I thought that depth meant plies between the node and _root_. This makes much more sense. Should the history values of _root_ moves producing a cut off be increased at all? Then one would have to decrease other history values more after each search and all the "small" history values get wiped away (root moves produce the biggest depth^2). >A better approach might be to do this on a per-ply type of basis. So that >at depth=N, you try the history moves found at other depth=N searches, before >you consider history moves for non-depth=N positions. Would take some thought >to make this work reasonably quickly. But it probably would be better. But as >a sloppy first approximation, depth^2 works well, for the reason given. I don't think it would make much difference. There are too many situations where different transpositions lead to same moves being good at different plies. Severi
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.