Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:19:27 11/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2000 at 03:54:41, José Carlos wrote: >On November 01, 2000 at 15:53:35, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: > >>>That is one too many degrees of freedom. I am interested in the case >>>"given the current Crafty search/evaluation, how much smaller would the tree >>>be if move ordering were optimal?" Or re-phrased to the original post in this >>>thread, "how close is the typical tree searched by Crafty to the minimal tree >>>that would be searched if move ordering were perfect?" >> >>This is certainly an interesting question and experiment, too. >> >>However, "perfect move ordering" is not so easy to determine >>in your setting if you stick with the variable-depth search of >>your standard version of "Crafty". In this case, best-first >>move ordering is not necessarily "perfect" or "optimal" with >>respect to the numbers of nodes searched to establish the root >>value. For, other moves than the best ones might lead to >>cheaper cutoffs requiring smaller search trees in the presence >>of forward pruning and extensions. >> >>=Ernst= > > If you set the eval=constant (for example, eval=0 for all nodes), wouldn't >that work as if you had perfect ordering (always cutoff in the first move)? In >that case, it'd be easy to do the experiment... > > José C. But then you couldn't compare that to your normal tree to see how much it varies from the test tree. The best move would be different, as would the PV and scores...
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.