Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: evaluation tuning tricks

Author: Renze Steenhuisen

Date: 08:10:00 03/17/04

Go up one level in this thread

On March 17, 2004 at 11:07:03, Fabien Letouzey wrote:

>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.
>>What has move-ordering to do with the sizes of subtrees of siblings?
>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.


what are NULL-window nodes again? I know of PV-, ALL- and CUT-nodes...


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.