Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 09:23:23 09/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2004 at 05:10:40, martin fierz wrote: >On September 23, 2004 at 04:14:15, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On September 23, 2004 at 04:10:18, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>[snip] >>> >>>>There is _no_ overhead. It is done only at the root, once per iteration. For a >>>>12 ply search, a total of 12 times. That won't use measurable CPU time. The >>>>point is that root move ordering is critical for efficiency.. >>> >>>exactly how critical for efficiency would you believe it to be? >> >>Depends on the bestmove. If that is constant, it's less important than after a >>rootfaillow. >> >>Tony > >ha! what kind of an answer is that :-) > >seriously though: it's clear that there is some importance to it, but can >anybody quantify it? e.g. like this: "ordering root moves by size of subtrees >gains X elo compared to constant static ordering done at ply 1". > >cheers > martin I would like to comment that I don't see what the point of ordering by subtree size is. That subtree is already searched. There is no flowover to other subtrees of brother moves at ply 0 to benefit those brothers. That is why when I experimented today with a ply == 0 resort after each move is searched that I resorted with the new history heuristic table. I got a very slight increase in problems solved (2 out of 300) with a slight 2% drop in total nodes searched. Stuart
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.