Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:36:54 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 17:50:02, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > One additional comment which I forgot to mention : > pcsq values based move ordering can and does perform worse than history for >some class of positions where there are lot of "history favourable" cutoffs >happening and for some other types of positions too. I would expect pcsq to be a lot worse than history sorting for most all positions. It takes just a second or two to get the history up and spinning, after that I don't see how pcsq is going to compete. > But in most of these cases , using ply - 2 killers and bumping number of >killers from 2 to 3 or say 4 was also sufficient compensation for removing >history even these sort of positions ! > > Take a set of quiet positions and it will be possible to see history being >totally equal or slightly worse or slightly better than random (or no) move >ordering. I don't think so, random is about as bad as you can get. History tables, while they may not be perfect, are certainly an improvement upon randomness. -S. > Eliminating all these and making move ordering as good as possible made >messchess a very slow engine that it is now. (This and a lot of other search and >eval related stuff :) ). > >Mridul
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.