Author: Will Singleton
Date: 08:37:23 03/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 2004 at 06:21:17, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 19, 2004 at 06:04:09, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On March 19, 2004 at 05:55:17, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On March 19, 2004 at 05:43:07, Tord Romstad wrote: >>> >>>>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? >> >>Yes, that makes more sense. >> >>>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. >> >>Perhaps. But they also tend to lead to bigger subtrees. If there are >>several moves which would fail high, I would prefer to search a move >>which does not cause an extension. >> >>>>>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. >> >>You're right, IID is the most obvious example. >> >>>>>:) 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. >> >>Perhaps not, but going from not very far behind Ruffian to significantly >>stronger than Ruffian is still a big jump. :-) > >Yes but I guess that a lot of programmers can do it. > >In my case I probably only need to implement some basic stuff implement some of >my original ideas and get rid of some bugs and maybe movei is going to be also >better than Shredder8. > >It is only a technical problem but unfortunately I am not strong in solving >technical problems and it will take me so much time that I am afraid that at >that time there will be something significantly better than shredder8. > >Uri Vintage Uri, straight up. May you never tire.
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.