Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 21:04:45 08/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2004 at 16:08:01, Eric Oldre wrote:
>a few nights ago i tried a idea i had for ordering quiet (non-capture) moves.
>
>here is my original ordering scheme:
>
>1) hash move
>2) winning captures (SEE > -.2: ordered by SEE)
>3) killer moves (non-captures)
>4) rest of moves, by SEE value.
>
>what i tried adding was:
>1) hash move
>2) winning captures (SEE > -.2: ordered by SEE)
>3) killer moves (non-captures)
>4) quiet moves that attack the space left behind by opponents last move (and
>don't have a bad SEE score)
>5) rest of moves, by SEE value.
>
I spent a lot of time with move ordering. So much I am actually
not going to revisit it in my program for a long time.
I found this worked for me:
1) abandon SEE for move ordering. use it to remove <0 captures in quiescence
only
2) order in main search with:
hash
pv moves for the side on move)
if you don't have those two then
make a score that is the sum of
history heurtic
mvv/lva
simple centrality from/to lookup (can be same as a pc/sq table Lookup)
qsort the whole mishmash and then start from the top down.
3) order in quiescence search with same as #2, respecting #1
I tried adding SEE to the score and killers to the above mix and it worsened
my result, substantially.
Stuart
P.S. Your mileage may vary.
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.