Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:33:23 08/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2000 at 10:19:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 28, 2000 at 22:21:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 28, 2000 at 19:32:05, Larry Griffiths wrote: >> >>>I have been reading about the History Heuristic and have seen pro's and con's >>>about it. >>> >>>I plan on implementing it to see what happens. This heuristic is related to >>>killer moves and uses the from and to squares in a 64 x 64 array to maintain >>>history information when moves are bestmoves or cutoffs. Each entry has 2 to >>>the depth power added to it when a bestmove or cutoff is found. >>> >>>Would you recommend the History Heuristic, and has anything changed for the >>>better with the method described above? >>> >>>Thanks in advance. >>> >>>Larry. >> >> >>Works fine, but don't use 2^depth... for reasonable search depths, that will >>overflow 32 bit counters almost immediately. I use depth^2 which is much >>safer... >> >>Other than that it works fine. If you don't get a cutoff by the time you have >>tried a few history-ordered moves, you probably should give up and just search >>the rest of the moves in random order. > >Oh well is this bob speaking? > >searching things in random order is never a good idea actually. On nodes where you have to search _all_ moves, the order in which you search them is 100% immaterial. These are the so-called ALL nodes. also called FULL in Knuth/Moore's paper. So I don't follow. Once you are convinced that you can't find a fail-high move using normal means, random is just as good as anything else, since "anything else" hasn't worked so far. And since random (generated order) is cheaper than anything else, why not? Works for me. And others, I might add...
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.