Author: Renze Steenhuisen
Date: 08:04:25 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 10:25:24, Tord Romstad wrote: >On March 17, 2004 at 09:55:59, Fabien Letouzey wrote: > >>No offense Tord, but I don't understand why programmers think the move ordering >>is "perfect" if a fail-high move is found first 100% of the time. > >Because the percentage of first-move fail-highs is easily measured? Of course >I agree that the size of subtrees is important, but I don't see how you can >determine how often a fail-high move has a smaller sub-tree than all other >fail-high moves at the same node, except by searching the whole minimax tree. > >Tord What has move-ordering to do with the sizes of subtrees of siblings? Renze
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.