Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 01:42:24 04/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 01, 2004 at 07:18:57, Bernd Nürnberger wrote: >On April 01, 2004 at 05:09:34, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On March 31, 2004 at 07:43:59, Bernd Nürnberger wrote: >> >>>Hello, >>> >>>[introduction] >>>(1) >>>[PV varies widly with different mvoe orderings] >>>(2) >>>[60-80% FH with MVV/LVA, PVS, history heuristics, hash table] >>>(3) >>>[SEE description wanted!] >>> > >>Your move ordering is quite ok. >Well, 80% or quite o.k., 60% are somewhat low I think. Compared to the simple >minmax (resp. the perft values), alpha beta with some enhancements is an >although very amazing in my opinion!! > >>There should be no big difference between mmv/lva for move ordering. (Untested >>hypothesis actually.) Killers should help. >Do you mean, moving from MVV/LVA to SEE will not reduce my tree size >drastically? Killers did not help very much two months ago, maybe because >they are very similiar to the history heuristics?! Yes, that's what I meant. Killers are more local than history. Are you sure you implemented them correctly? They should definitely be done before bad captures, maybe even before equal captures. > >>The main thing which will drive up your first cut rate is internal iterative >>deepening. (If you have it implemented and are getting 60-80%, then you have a >>bug.) >Maybe this is really a good idea! I did not try it so far, and I will >surely try it the next days. Thanks for this advice! > >Greetings, > Bernd
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.