Author: Roberto Nerici
Date: 00:08:55 03/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2004 at 01:08:10, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 03, 2004 at 23:51:35, Andrew Dados wrote: > >>On March 03, 2004 at 22:14:12, Andrew Wagner wrote: >> >>>On March 03, 2004 at 22:09:51, Charles Roberson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I suggest the use of history and killer moves. Give killers priority over >>>> history. Give winning captures priority over killers. >>> >>> >>>How do you define "winning captures"? >> >>Really simple improvement is to put 'captures of last moved piece' first, then 2 >>killer moves, then rest of captures. Don't bother with history heuristic, it >>hardly works. Then later you can redo this to move all winning captures before >>killers. >> >>-Andrew- > >I disagree that history tables hardly works. > >Tscp has history tables and no killer moves and it has clearly better order of >moves than 50%. Definitely if you don't have killer moves then history tables help a lot, and similarly if you don't have history tables then killer moves help a lot. I took Andrew's comment to mean that adding history tables once you've got killer moves doesn't help. I think that is a bit of a generalisation (will depend on the engine) but certainly for mine when I added history tables after killer moves it only made a small difference. Still, it was worth keeping... Another thing to do is to play with the number of killer moves. Most engines use two, I think, but I found that (without history tables) adding a third one did help a very slightly. Roberto/.
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.