Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 14:32:09 08/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2004 at 17:29:53, Lance Perkins wrote: >Which "this" are you referring to. The comparison of the two methods? The phased >method? or the simplistic method? And why? > >Its not like I'm all over the phased method idea. I'm just curios. I'm satisfied >with what I have (something that works and is easy to maintain). > >On August 26, 2004 at 16:55:05, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>On August 26, 2004 at 16:25:07, Lance Perkins wrote: >> >>>After seeing the posted NextMove code, I wonder how much better this is than >>>simply generating all the moves and then sorting them in one go. >>> >>>This code is a little to complex and tool long for my liking, but if it offers a >>>very significant gain, maybe I should give it a second look. >>> >>>I can immagine that when one gets a cutoff, the rest of the moves don't have to >>>be generated (captures vs non-captures). However, in leaf nodes, one is very >>>likely to generated all the moves anyway. >>> >>>Has anyone compared these? >> >>I would avoid this. You won't be able to fully recognize the full pre-search value of a move using this method. So move ordering won't be as good. It didn't gain us any advantage in GNU 5. Stuart
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.