Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:41:35 10/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 1999 at 18:24:57, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On October 14, 1999 at 18:00:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 14, 1999 at 10:02:18, stefan wrote: >> >>>What do you think sort (and if yes how) or search move by move? >>> >>>Thank you >>>stefan plenkner >> >> >>The only 'sort' I do is to sort captures based on expected material gain/loss >>(SEE score). There are usually a very few, so I use a simple bubble sort >>which works well. > >Perhaps you meant to say "insertion sort" instead of "bubble sort". Sedgewick >comment about bubble sort: "It is not clear why this method is so often taught, >since insertion sort seems simpler and more efficinet by almost any measure. The >inner loop of bubble sort has about twice as many instructions as either >insertion sort or selection sort." there is theory, and there is reality. :) In theory, you are right. In reality, I use a _real_ bubble sort, although I do an early exit rather than going for N*N iterations. But it is a classic bubble sort. the number of captures to sort is _very_ small. for small N, N^2 is very close to N*log(n) type sorts. And the code is smaller and more cache friendly with far fewer branches. > >> >>For history moves I use a 'selection sort'... where I pass over the entire move >>list one time, find the move with the best history score, and try that. I then >>repeat for the next move, and do this 4 times before I decide that history is >>not going to cause a cutoff. (this is called 'selection sort' although it isn't >>really a 'sort' at all).
This page took 0.01 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.