Author: Omid David
Date: 02:24:59 08/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2002 at 05:21:32, Omid David wrote:
>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.
Sorry, I just copy/pasted from one of my LaTeX papers!
The two articles by Schaeffer are are:
Schaeffer, J. (1989). The history heuristic and alpha-beta search enhancements
in practice. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,
Vol. 11, No. 11, pp. 1203-1212.
Shaeffer, J. (1983). The history heuristic. ICCA Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.
16-19.
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.