Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 23:53:39 08/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2000 at 23:00:52, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On August 28, 2000 at 22:36:26, Larry Griffiths 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. >> >>I have Jonathan Schaeffer's paper "The History Heuristic and Alpha-Beta Search >>Enhancements in Practice". I also figured the counters might overflow and it >>looks like he ran his tests to around 9 plys. He also describes that the >>history tables can become flooded with information, decreasing their usefulness. >> I wondered if this was due to an overflow of his counters at plys 8 and 9. >> >>Excuse me Bob, but I have not done powers in quite a while and I was thinking >>2^depth amounted to shifting the binary value 2 left depth positions. Maybe I >>am just tired, but is depth^2 like depth squared? I plan on using 64 bit >>counters so I am not worried about overflowing the counters. I thought I would >>also try different formula's for calculating the weights. >> >>Larry. > >Don't worry, Bob wasn't inventing "new math". The depth^2 function is okay. It >is faster to calculate than the function you intend plus it works. Depending on the processor, multiplication is sometimes slow. Bit shifting is almost universally quick. 2^depth is at least as fast as depth^2. Dave
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.