Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 13:41:39 01/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2002 at 14:04:24, David Rasmussen wrote: >On January 15, 2002 at 13:54:56, Frank Schneider wrote: > >> >>thats right. If your timecontrol-mechanism can stop a search before >>finishing an iteration the opposite seems to be clever. >>Suppose your first move fails low and your short on time. Then you >>search the "difficult" moves first (moves which took a lot of time >>in previous searches) and your timecontrol mechanism stops the search >>after only searching a few moves. This reduces the chance to find >>a better move. And even if you finish the iteration you probably search >>all the expensive moves with a bad search-window. >> >>Frank >> > >Any serious program can stop at will whether in the middle of an iteration or >not. I don't think the advantage of a better move ordering scheme is for time >control. If one root move ordering leads to half the tree compared to another, >you will simply search deeper and find better moves, given the same time. > >/David Of course you can stop the search at will. The problem is when you stop before completing a fail low verification search, then the move failing low is your best one. This is a bad move if you are lucky; but possibly a move which throws away the game. Uli
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.