Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 13:06:11 11/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2000 at 14:06:27, Andrew Williams wrote: >On November 28, 2000 at 12:52:57, Scott Gasch wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>I posted a couple of messages about move ordering yesterday and wanted to share >>some results from my (limited) testing. I ended up implementing the suggested >>"apparently losing captures" (MVV/LVA) after all others order. In one test >>position this resulted in a tree 200k nodes larger at 8 ply but in two others it >>resulted in a marginally smaller (under 40k nodes) tree at 8 ply. I will do >>more testing on this matter but it may be a moot point because I intend to write >>a SEE pretty soon. >> >>I also did some experimenting with ordering captures that take the last moved >>enemy piece. At low search depth this seems to make some difference but at >>higher depth this heuristic actually grew the tree in all three test positions > I tried. >> >>I also did some playing with history weight and settled on hist[x][y] += (2 << >>depth). > >I use history[whoseTurn][frsq][tosq] += (depthremaining*depthremaining) >I have a separate table for white and black. Every few plies I divide >this number back by a lot (can't remember how much or how often). Why does everyone think that a move that cuts off after a deep search is more likely to produce cutoffs elsewhere in the tree, than one that cuts off after a shallow search? That multiplication is expensive. Does it achieve anything? bruce
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.