Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 08:17:18 03/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 08, 2001 at 10:37:36, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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? IMHO, these ideas are completely independent of the history table. Both ideas can be used simultaneously. >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? I obtain slightly larger trees if I omit the killer moves. So, they seem still to be useful though I guess that they have lost some importance when transposition tables are present. Uli > >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.