Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 13:29:00 04/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2004 at 15:51:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 05, 2004 at 15:02:56, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>On April 05, 2004 at 14:11:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 05, 2004 at 12:27:50, rasjid chan wrote: >>> >>>>On April 05, 2004 at 11:05:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>Thanks, but I don't need to test yet as you have tested ! >>>> >>>>I think using nodes searched should be good. >>>>If a move fails low with very few nodes searched, it probably >>>>mean being rejected easily, so sort low. >>>> >>>>Rasjid >>> >>>Correct most of the time. Sometimes a move will have a high node count just >>>because there are lots of checks and extensions. But I've been sorting by node >>>counts for 15+ years with good results, of course forcing the PV move to always >>>be at the top regardless of its node count... >>> >> >>I use node count per root move too. >>What about following "enhancement": >>If PV changes, to store (some) "previous" PV moves and to use them early after >>current PV move, regardless of their node counts? > > >It is worth testing. It didn't work for me in crafty or Cray Blitz, but it >might work for another program. I always had the best luck overall by just >using pure node counts... > >It helps the most when there is a "best" move that you won't find until deeper >depths. It will percolate up the list, iteration by iteration, so that it is >near the top on the iteration where it becomes best. I also use this >information in my parallel split/dont-split at the root adaptive algorithm in >Crafty... Yes, exactly my experience. Anyway i occasionally noticed a former PV move had low node count (e.g. a forced draw line) but a new PV move suddenly fails below draw score. Im such cases trying the "safe" drawline earlier may help to waste some time.
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.