Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 14:24:45 01/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
>>Could you or have you compared this with the "node" method? Which one gave you >>the better results? I like the node approach because it gives a priority number >>for each move in root node "looks" like a sound method. > > I tried the node method a while back and, as I didn't notice any differenc (I >mean, better for some positions and worse for others) I kept my method just >because it seems more logical to. Maybe it's not the best, but try to think what >happens when a human player finds his prefferred move is bad. I (2135 FIDE) >usually continue searching my second-prefferred move, and I like my program to >do the same :) Sounds justified. I think that the node version does the same. It would be interesting to see what is the order of moves in some positions. I mean are the moves with high node counts really good moves. Now I just blindly believe that this is the case. >>I meant that first I do 1 ply search and the I allways use the score from >>previous iteration. So the 1 ply search is done with infinite window. > > Ok, so you mean your first ply search is full-window, and only narrow it for >the second iteration, right? Yep. >>Maybe I should also not give an infinite window at first place but try a wider >>window first. Well, I try to make my program play so that it improves its >>position 0.50 pawns on every move so I don't have to re-search ;) > > Not bad idea :), but anyway you should try a somewhat wider window before >going to -INF,+INF. Ok. >> >>Ok, I don't do hashing yet. >> >>Severi > > Null-move, maybe...? Well, actually all the other well-known and not so well-known stuff besides hashing...allmost. Next I have to optimize some things to get some NPSs and then I'll focus on evaluation. Severi
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.