Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:38:53 09/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2004 at 18:53:51, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >Are you saying I should consider marking each move after its search, then >back up the score value, node count, etc., then resort based on that? > >I could see that various parts of the subtree have generated new history >heuristic scores for from/to move coordinate pairs and that a resort could >affect the remaining move order. > >I don't currently resort at any level after the movegen at that level. >I just search all the moves in the original post-movegen-sort-order. > >I am fine with considering doing continual resorts but worry about the >overhead and the return. But with it being the all important move-ordering, >what have you seen in doing these resorts in terms of improvement > >Stuart There is _no_ overhead. It is done only at the root, once per iteration. For a 12 ply search, a total of 12 times. That won't use measurable CPU time. The point is that root move ordering is critical for efficiency..
This page took 0.01 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.