Author: Renze Steenhuisen
Date: 08:10:00 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 11:07:03, Fabien Letouzey wrote: >On March 17, 2004 at 11:04:25, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: > >>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 > >In PV nodes you want the move that leads to the best score. > >In null-window nodes you want the move that fails high after searching the >smallest subtree, not necessarily the one that leads to the best score. > >Fabien. Fabien, what are NULL-window nodes again? I know of PV-, ALL- and CUT-nodes... 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.