Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 07:37:36 03/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 08, 2001 at 06:51:13, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >On March 08, 2001 at 06:26:05, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>The second idea to sort "the remaining moves" by a piece_square table >>has been in Rebel from the very early start. Last time (about 2-3 years >>ago) I removed the algorithm (just to satisfy my curiosity) Rebel's >>performance in ply-depth decreased with a factor of 2. Surprised by the >>outcome I quickly activated the algorithm again. >> >>Ed > >Thanks for the sharing your precious experience. >In the old gnuchess (IIRC), it wasn't just a piece-square table, but something >like the "net result" of the positional evaluation (weak field, king safety, >...) had been attributed to the square. Also creation of a doubled pawn for >instance resulted in a penalty for this move regarding move ordering. >Using solely a piece-square table instead may be a good alternative without >serious performance penalty. > >Uli How all these ideas would compare to history table? That seems to work very well for me. It looks like it is incompatible. History table is very easy to implement and there is almost no overhead. I would recommend this one first to try to a beginner like me. BTW, I haven't tried too hard, but it looks like killers do not work for me. Is that possible? Regards, Miguel
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.