Author: Bernd Nürnberger
Date: 04:53:04 04/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
[...] >>I put back killers now into my engine, and they indeed helps -- to less or >>more account depending on the position (that's clear ...). >>I will also try some experiments with the idea I read in another thread: >>also take killer[ply-2n], killer[ply+2n]... >Interesting. Probably at most a very small win - but cheap anyway. After many experimenting I found out that in my engine, the best thing to do is to use only *one* killer move; furthermore the ply-2n...ply+2n also costs too much in Java (that bound checks on every array access!). [~ 2000 clocks/move] > >That is really fast. When Rybka was first running, it was also really fast. >(Although not this fast.) At some point, you have to decide if you will keep it >fast (ie like Fritz, Junior), or try some more expensive computation (ie. like >Shredder, Hiarcs). I think you have to find a good balance between speed and knowledge. The knowledge I have is clearly too less in the moment (pc-val, pc-sq-vals, castling boni). [...] >Re. internal iterative deepening, it's much more important to order the first >move well than to order the bottom half of the moves well. If you order your >first move well, you'll fail high quicker, saving lots of nodes. If you get to >the point of searching the bottom half of your moves, you are probably failing >low anyway, and the order won't matter. That's surely try. I am doing hash (on fail: IID), than caps, three ordered history moves, rest *unsorted* ... and that's very similiar to other engines. Sorting all moves brings down nodes by only a 1-2% but punishing time by 5%-10% in my engine, so I decided it is not worth it. Greetings, Bernd
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.