Author: Pham Minh Tri
Date: 04:26:19 06/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2001 at 04:37:53, Tony Werten wrote: >On June 27, 2001 at 23:00:59, Pham Minh Tri wrote: > >>On June 27, 2001 at 12:25:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On June 26, 2001 at 12:43:39, Pham Minh Tri wrote: >>> >>>>[snip] >>>>>>>So for the loss of speed you get back a more efficient search besides >>>>>>>a better eval (that last of course still is hard work)! >>>>>> >>>>>>But I guess attacktables do not help move order much, so instead of them, >>>>> >>>>>May i beg your pardon? >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>>I think, after hash, captures, killers, history moves, now attacktables have a >>>>chance to contribute, for example, help some pieces to escape. As a result, they >>>>could not help much. >>> >>>Beginner. >> >>You are totally true!!! >> >>However, I forgot to say that I use SEE for sorting captures. This must be >>better than use of attacktables, so I still think they have later chances to >>improve move order. BTW, I will think carefully about their abilities. Thanks. > >Eh, shouldn't attacktables be used for your SEE sorting ? Yes, they save more time than SEE. Bob and someone said that the time saved by improving move order by SEE may be equal the time spent for it (net zero). But I think move order by SEE is more accurate and will be safer when I extend my program. > >Tony
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.