Author: Volker Böhm
Date: 08:21:35 03/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2004 at 03:08:55, Roberto Nerici wrote: >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. For my engine 6 killer moves are best even with history tables. Exception at horizont ply, where 2 killers are best. > >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.