Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 02:55:17 03/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 2004 at 05:43:07, Tord Romstad wrote: >On March 19, 2004 at 02:17:28, Sergei S. Markoff wrote: > >>Hello! >> >>>Interesting. I've always thought that checks should be given some form of >>>priority in the move ordering list. Of course they will be expensive to >>>calculate but could be well worthwhile. Please do let us know the results. >> >>Ok, seems to be good. I'm trying now to implement a lot of knowledge in move >>orderering -- it's my favorite way to integrate knowledge anywhere :) The checks >>with SEE>=0 seems to be good in middlegame. Also pawn pushes with SEE>=0 after >>castling and excluding pawns of king shelter. > >I am not sure I understand the logic behind the last rule above. Is there >any reason to believe that safe pawn pushes are better (in general) than >most other moves? I think maybe he means passed pawn pushes? I think once the obvious "try a quick cutoff move" has been searched, it would make sense to order the moves that gets extended to also be searched first. By 'definition' they are interesting moves. >>Also I'm trying to implement some >>attacks info -- "forks" e.t.c. Hint: expensive knowledge can be implemented when >>remaining depth >2*INCPLY or >3*INCPLY e.t.c. > >Yes. It's strange that so few people seem to realize this. Apparently, >almost everyone uses exactly the same move ordering techniques at all nodes, >regardless of the remaining depth. It makes sense to use much more expensive >move ordering knoledge when the remaining depth is big. If the expected >size of the subtree is millions of nodes, it is clearly a good idea to >spend a lot of effort to make sure the best moves are searched first. If you have a good scheme you can probably benefit from it all the way to the leaves, perhaps only at the last ply or two it will be too expensive. IID is one such example btw. >> >>:) It will be. But I'm waiting for ST that will be significantly stronger than >>Ruffian 1.05. > >Please don't wait so long! :-) Huh? SmarThink doesn't appear to be very far from Ruffian strength already. http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/his6thedition.html >I once asked you whether there was any chance that you would port your >engine to Linux and/or Mac OS X, and you replied that you would make an >attempt as soon as the next version was finished. > >Version 0.17a has the perfect strength as a sparring partner for my own >engine. The last time I tried, my engine lost a 100-game match by 47.5-52.5. >An engine significantly stronger than Ruffian would just be too depressing >to play against, I'm afraid. :-) Wow, either Gothmog was very lucky or something was broken in ST's setup or Gothmog is a lot stronger than I think. :) -S. >Tord
This page took 0.02 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.