Author: Mike Siler
Date: 07:06:32 03/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2004 at 08:35:04, Andrew Wagner wrote: >Once again, you guys have provided a ton of useful info. Thanks so much! > >First of all, I have to apologize - I forgot to mention that I do use a history >heuristic table. Just a very simple one...if a move fails high, I increment >history(square.source, square.dest). You may already be doing this, but you be incrementing by remaining_depth or (remaining_depth)^2, not just by one. >Then I add the MVV/LA score if it's a >capturing move, and sort by the sum of those two. The scores in the history table, especially if you use the method I described above, will be huge compared to the MVV/LVA value (assuming a pawn value is around 100). So adding MVV/LVA score to the history table won't make much difference (in my experience). Ideally you would search the hash move first, followed by the winning captures, then the killer moves, then the remaining moves sorted by the history table scores. To decide what a winning capture is, you could use MVV/LVA, but a Static Exchange Evaluator is a lot better. >I had hash tables, aspiration >windows, and null-move, but I took them out to seek if I could get my move order >% up without them. > >As far as killer moves, what usually defines them? I haven't read much about >them. The idea behind killer moves is that if a move causes a cutoff at a certain depth, then the next time you get to that depth it is probably a good idea to try that move again. Most programs that use killers store 2-3 cutoff moves for each ply. >And with reference to Andreas' comment, do most of you agree? It makes sense to >me that if both move order % and nps are low, it could be something in >quiescence. What do you guys suggest I look at first? > >Thanks a ton for your help! Andrew
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.