Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 03:04:09 03/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 2004 at 05:55:17, Sune Fischer wrote: >On March 19, 2004 at 05:43:07, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>I am not sure I understand the logic behind the last rule above. Is there >>any reason to believe that safe pawn pushes are better (in general) than >>most other moves? > >I think maybe he means passed pawn pushes? Yes, that makes more sense. >I think once the obvious "try a quick cutoff move" has been searched, it would >make sense to order the moves that gets extended to also be searched first. By >'definition' they are interesting moves. Perhaps. But they also tend to lead to bigger subtrees. If there are several moves which would fail high, I would prefer to search a move which does not cause an extension. >>>Also I'm trying to implement some >>>attacks info -- "forks" e.t.c. Hint: expensive knowledge can be implemented when >>>remaining depth >2*INCPLY or >3*INCPLY e.t.c. >> >>Yes. It's strange that so few people seem to realize this. Apparently, >>almost everyone uses exactly the same move ordering techniques at all nodes, >>regardless of the remaining depth. It makes sense to use much more expensive >>move ordering knoledge when the remaining depth is big. If the expected >>size of the subtree is millions of nodes, it is clearly a good idea to >>spend a lot of effort to make sure the best moves are searched first. > >If you have a good scheme you can probably benefit from it all the way to the >leaves, perhaps only at the last ply or two it will be too expensive. >IID is one such example btw. You're right, IID is the most obvious example. >>>:) It will be. But I'm waiting for ST that will be significantly stronger than >>>Ruffian 1.05. >> >>Please don't wait so long! :-) > >Huh? > >SmarThink doesn't appear to be very far from Ruffian strength already. Perhaps not, but going from not very far behind Ruffian to significantly stronger than Ruffian is still a big jump. :-) >http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/his6thedition.html > >>I once asked you whether there was any chance that you would port your >>engine to Linux and/or Mac OS X, and you replied that you would make an >>attempt as soon as the next version was finished. >> >>Version 0.17a has the perfect strength as a sparring partner for my own >>engine. The last time I tried, my engine lost a 100-game match by 47.5-52.5. >>An engine significantly stronger than Ruffian would just be too depressing >>to play against, I'm afraid. :-) > >Wow, either Gothmog was very lucky or something was broken in ST's setup or >Gothmog is a lot stronger than I think. >:) There was certainly some luck involved. My other results with Gothmog 0.4.7 have not been quite as good. Here are the results of the matches I have played so far: Gothmog 0.4.7-Yace Paderborn: 40-60 Gothmog 0.4.7-Pepito 1.59: 42.5-47.5 Gothmog 0.4.7-SmarThink 0.17a: 47.5-52.5 Gothmog 0.4.7-AnMon 5.21: 56-44 Gothmog 0.4.7-Phalanx XXII: 71.5-28.5 Tord
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.