Author: Omid David
Date: 02:21:32 08/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2002 at 02:57:20, Steve Maughan wrote:
>David,
>
>>I implemented all the mechanisms that i think i'm supposed to--nullmove, hash
>>move first, then two killers, then winning static exchange moves sorted by
>>expected material win, then moves sorted by their history score. I sort moves
>>at the root with each iterative deepening.
>
>Try swapping Killers and SEE wins - I think that's the problem i.e. generally
>wisdom says that the move order should be:
>
>1) Hash Move
>2) Winning SEE captures
>3) Killers
>4) History
>5) Losing SEE captures
>
>Regards,
>
>Steve
There are interesting possible options for the priorities, take a look at:
\bibitem{schaeffer89} Schaeffer, J. (1989). The history heuristic and alpha-beta
search enhancements in practice. \emph{IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and
Machine Intelligence}, Vol. 11, No. 11, pp. 1203-1212.
\bibitem{schaeffer83} Shaeffer, J. (1983). The history heuristic. \emph{ICCA
Journal}, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 16-19.
This page took 0.01 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.