Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 17:49:08 01/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2002 at 20:28:45, Russell Reagan wrote: >>An engine with a perfect ordering will not play perfect chess. I will play >>the best chess you could possibly play with the evaluation function of >>that engine. >> >>Regards, >>Miguel > >Maybe I am confusing what you mean by "perfect" move ordering. When I think of >perfect move ordering I think that the moves are sorted in order from best to >worst, i.e. that you know that the move at the top of the list is the best move >(how one could possibly know this I have no idea). best to worst according to a given depth and evaluation function. For a depth not so high is not so difficult to calculate the perfect ordering for a given position. You can research and save best moves on a special table, that would be a practical number for that position. In other words, a perfect move ordering is one that gives you the smallest tree possible. Best is defined according to the one that gives best evaluation at the end of the search. >I think you are not meaning this. I think you are trying to ask how many nodes >the program would look at if with it's given evaluation function it searched the >first move and then the rest of the moves were all cutoff via alpha-beta >pruning. Is that the point you are trying to get at? That is not the question, that's part of the solution :-) Miguel > >Russell
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.