Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 10:52:21 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 13:06:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 16, 2004 at 12:41:55, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On March 16, 2004 at 12:30:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 16, 2004 at 12:04:22, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On March 16, 2004 at 11:25:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 16, 2004 at 11:19:17, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>I principally agree with GCP here. I do not understand how in certain software >>>>>HH can work. Must be a bug in their move ordering IMHO. >>>> >>>>If you can't make them work, why do you reply to his post? >>>> >>>>-S. >>> >>> >>>Ignorance. Unabashed ignorance... >>> >>>What else? >>> >>>HH works just fine. Of course if Vincent can't get them to work, then it is >>>impossible that they will work for anybody. "proof" enough?? >> >>Yes, and this time the poster even gets to contact him personally for more >>information on how NOT to make them work! >> >>I admit I can see his point, precious secrets _like that_ are not to be posted >>in a public forum :) >> >>-S. > > >none of his "precious secrets" should be posted... > >:) Just try this - after the end of a 3 min search from a fairly complicated middle game position (like for example - Nxh6 nolot position) , print out the history values. You will see the junk that is contained in the table. If you seriously expect much of information to be obtained from this for move ordering - I dont know what to say. I like some other mentioned here though - clear it x number of ply or y number of seconds - helps to reduce the randomness. Also Ed's idea is also somewhat better. I have not tried these , so cant comment - but helps in localising the effects to a smaller subtree where the tables could be potentially more relevent. But essentially , history tables in the general sense will detreriorate into random move ordering quiet soon for higher depth when number of nodes increases. Is that one of the reasons why you sort and try history scores for only first n (i think 4) number of history moves in crafty ? Maybe this could be an optimisation reason also - i dont know. But if there is a possibility of hitting a better move earlier on using history tables , then shouldn't crafty not be trying it for all the moves ? - the gain could be potentially exponential in case of earlier cutoff ! Mridul
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.