Author: Don Dailey
Date: 12:01:54 06/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 1998 at 09:43:45, Dan Homan wrote: >I'm not sure the right place to jump into this thread, >but here will work... > >Is the speed-up from incremental move generation the >only reason to use killers over the history heuristic? > >I've runs some quick 'n dirty tests on my program (which >does not use incremental move generation... rather I >generate all the moves at once and score them for sorting >as I generate them), and the history heuristic by >itself seems superior (in essentially all the positions I >tested) to killers alone or killer+history. > >Perhaps my testing was flawed (it was very quick) or my >implementation, but I was wondering if anyone else had >a similar experience. > >For programs that do incremental move generation (like >crafty), killers are surely a win because they don't >need to do a full move generation if they get a cutoff. >But what about programs that don't use this approach? > > - Dan My experience with history heuristic is a wash. My older programs used to benefit a lot, but maybe too many move ordering heuristics get in the way? I dutifully implement this with each new program just looking for any small advantage I can get and then always have to disable it. Are you saying history heuristic worked better when you did not use the killers at all? - Don
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.