Author: Eric Oldre
Date: 11:38:57 04/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread, It's helped my understanding a lot. I think I'll use the suggestion below and call queis(-INFINITY,INFINITY) for each root node move to find the estimated score before starting iterative deepening. Eric Oldre On April 14, 2004 at 12:28:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 14, 2004 at 03:32:17, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>On April 14, 2004 at 02:21:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On April 14, 2004 at 00:26:34, Eric Oldre wrote: >>> >>>>After you find the 1st "good" move don't you narrow the alpha beta window so >>>>that you don't know how much worse the 2nd move is, only that it is not as good >>>>as alpha? >>>> >>>>Or do you not narrow the window at the root node? that seems like it would >>>>greatly expand your search tree. >>>> >>>>or am i missing something else? >>>> >>>> >>>>On April 14, 2004 at 00:09:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>Simple idea: >>>>> >>>>>a move is "easy" and can be made after using less than the planned time limit if >>>>>and only if >>>>> >>>>>1. estimated score for first root move is way higher than the second move. IE >>>>>say 2.00 better. >>>>> >>>>>2. This is a recapture. IE opponent just captured a piece of ours and we are >>>>>recapturing on the same square. >>>>> >>>>>Other types of "easy" moves have higher risk to stop the search early... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>Eric Oldre (new chess programmer) >>> >>> >>> >>>I think that by "estimated score", Bob means the score returned by a SEE (Static >>>Exchange Evaluator), not by a real search. >> >>I shouldn't tell what Bob means but I doubt this is right... >>I wouldn't rely on a SEE for such decisions when the first few iterations will >>give you a much more reliable score quite fast and you could use the score for >>previous move in the game as a staring point. >>If the score fulfills the conditions mentioned by Bob from the first iteration >>and up to lets say 1/2 the total time alotted for that move then stop and make >>the move. (Given that the time allocated for a move is just a function of >>remaining time and number of moves left) >>/Peter >> > >I don't use SEE. I use a call to Quiesce() for each root move to get an >approximate score for sorting them... > >It still isn't perfect, but it is not bad... > >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe
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.