Author: Kai Skibbe
Date: 22:12:46 10/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 1998 at 11:08:15, James Robertson wrote: >On October 21, 1998 at 10:54:16, James T. Walker wrote: > >>If I understood a previous thread, Dr. Hyatt indicated that there is >effectively >>no move ordering done by most programs(At least Crafty)? > >Crafty orderes moves by firstly trying the hash move, then killers? (I'm not >sure), then gainful captures, etc. There is actually a lot of move ordering >done, but for Crafty, it is all in *generating* more promising moves first. My >program has very primitive move ordering, using only pv search, gainful >captures, and killer moves. Each one of these heuristics has reduced move time >by 25% to 50%, so obviously move ordering is really important. I plan to add >hash, history (this will profoundly rearrange your move list), and other stuff >as soon as I find out I failed biology, and say "the heck with it. Might as well >work on my program!" :) > >>Can anyone please >>answer this for me?? It seems unreal that there would be no attempt to order >>the moves so that the most promising moves were searched first. >> >>Another question-- Can anyone tell me if there is any advantage to having 1 meg >>of L2 cache vs 512K relative to chess programs? Hi Jim, the speed difference will be minimal, but with most motherboards the cacheable area with 1MB L2Cache is twice as with 512KCache. So I think 1M L2 Cache is worth the extra money. For example I have the NMC 5VMMX with 1MB Cache and the cacheable area is 256MB RAM. With only 512KB Cache the cacheable area would be only 128MB RAM. Best Regards Kai > >I haven't a clue! > >>Thanks,\ >>Jim Walker > >Hope I helped, >James
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.