Author: J. Wesley Cleveland
Date: 10:51:14 03/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2000 at 01:37:33, Andrew Dados wrote: >On March 29, 2000 at 23:50:51, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On March 28, 2000 at 23:30:11, Andrew Dados wrote: >> [snip] >>>> >>>>So in the case where there is going to be a fail-low, you think that doing IID >>>>will use more time than just searching every move immediately at the required >>>>depth? Why? (If that's not what you meant, then I misunderstood you.) >>> >>>That's what I ment, yes. You *have to* search all the moves at that ply to full >>>depth anyway, so searching first to depth 1, then 2, etc is not helpful at all >>>in FL node. You'll waste all those nodes. >> >>"not helpful at all"? IID will give you better move ordering than you could get >>statically, which should save you work overall. >> > >Just curious... what 'better move ordering' in FL node? Any move ordering is as >good as other there (we will search all moves and all will fail low)... and that >was my main point. > If you *know* it is a FL node, you don't need to search at all. ;) In those cases where it actually isn't, you need to order your moves to find the refutation.
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.