Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 10:27:59 03/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 2000 at 13:14:59, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On March 28, 2000 at 12:17:14, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On March 28, 2000 at 11:08:59, Bas Hamstra wrote: >> >>>Question is: is move ordering very important near the root and less important >>>near the leafs? Bob Hyatt says so. One mistake near the root costs millions of >>>nodes. On the other hand almost all nodes are leafnodes, so bad ordering near >>>the leafs costs millions of nodes too. >> >>I think so. At least in my program, hash table size does not matter much. (See >>previous posts in this thread.) >> >>>Has anyone measured if you search somewhat deeper if you do extensive ordering >>>near the root and cheap (just MVV/LVA) ordering near the leafs and in the >>>qsearch? >> >>Because SEE only improves things by ~%10 over MVV/LVA, I don't think doing SEE >>at the root and MVV/LVA otherwise would make much sense. You can do searches to >>improve move ordering, which is the idea behind internal interative deepening. >>So yes, people are doing this, and I believe it works, although I haven't tried >>it myself. >> >>-Tom > >I have yet to figure out why people who use iterative deepening and understand >why it works do not also use internal iterative deepening. Could somebody >enlighten me? > >Dave It will only work when node you do it at will fail high, otherwise it's waste of nodes... so eg Bob does it along PV and only when no good move from HT... Some programs have 'double null move', which accomplishes pretty much the same. -Andrew-
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.