Author: Fabien Letouzey
Date: 08:15:30 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 11:10:00, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >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. >>>> >>>>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. > > >Fabien, > >what are NULL-window nodes again? I know of PV-, ALL- and CUT-nodes... > >Renze It's only my name for them, nodes that are searched with a null window (you don't know yet if they will be CUT or ALL of course). Move ordering never affects ALL nodes anyway (forgetting about transpositions). 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.