Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 19:17:10 09/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2004 at 21:09:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I will try it.
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.