Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:09:33 09/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2004 at 20:55:37, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 22, 2004 at 19:38:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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.. > >That's a new one on me. I always thought it was throughout the tree. I'll >have to chew up some code on this one. Ordering is important everywhere. But this thread was about ordering at the _root_ of the tree...
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.