Author: Renze Steenhuisen
Date: 08:15:43 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 11:04:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On March 16, 2004 at 04:41:40, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: > >It seems to differ from program to program. > >In diep it doesn't work at all. > >I tried many different forms of keeping track of the HH table. There is no need >for just [64][64] there is many different forms possible. Like for each side >makes already more sense. > >In diep the general killermove also hardly works. HH is probably even more a >'general overal killer'. In diep basically local killers who continuesly get >replaced work very well. > >All big slow global stuff just doesn't work for DIEP. > >I had the same result for my draughts program Napoleon. Yeah, I read your previous post on this topic from the archive but thanks anyway! I have tried some different things, but I am a bit puzzled. I got very good numbers for gain in move-ordering for shallow searches (say 5-7 ply), so I tried 2 things: >>Hi all! >> >>I did some measurements on my move-ordering, and it seems that the positive >>effect of the History Heuristic wears of with increasing search depth? Is this >>observed by others as well or am I doing something awfully wrong here... >> >> >>History Heuristic: >> >> int table[64][64]; >> >> every time the 'best move' was found (either fail-high or all moves >> searched) I do: >> table[from][to]+=remaining_depth*remaining_depth >> >> The non-capture moves are sorted in History Heuristic order. >> >>Cheers! >> >>Renze
This page took 0.02 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.