Author: Fabien Letouzey
Date: 08:07:03 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 11:04:25, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >On March 17, 2004 at 10:25:24, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On March 17, 2004 at 09:55:59, Fabien Letouzey wrote: >> >>>No offense Tord, but I don't understand why programmers think the move ordering >>>is "perfect" if a fail-high move is found first 100% of the time. >> >>Because the percentage of first-move fail-highs is easily measured? Of course >>I agree that the size of subtrees is important, but I don't see how you can >>determine how often a fail-high move has a smaller sub-tree than all other >>fail-high moves at the same node, except by searching the whole minimax tree. >> >>Tord > >What has move-ordering to do with the sizes of subtrees of siblings? > >Renze In PV nodes you want the move that leads to the best score. In null-window nodes you want the move that fails high after searching the smallest subtree, not necessarily the one that leads to the best score. Fabien.
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.