Author: Tony Werten
Date: 03:37:33 09/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2004 at 05:10:40, martin fierz wrote: >On September 23, 2004 at 04:14:15, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On September 23, 2004 at 04:10:18, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>[snip] >>> >>>>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.. >>> >>>exactly how critical for efficiency would you believe it to be? >> >>Depends on the bestmove. If that is constant, it's less important than after a >>rootfaillow. >> >>Tony > >ha! what kind of an answer is that :-) > >seriously though: it's clear that there is some importance to it, but can >anybody quantify it? e.g. like this: "ordering root moves by size of subtrees >gains X elo compared to constant static ordering done at ply 1". If you want exact science, don't get involved in computerchess :) But seriously, I don't think it matters much while the bestmove stays constant. Maybe slightly better killermoves, maybe slightly better hash cutoffs, but I doubt it's significant. After a faillow however, finding the new bestmove at 2nd place will be a lot nicer than failing high on move 2, resolving it, failing high on move 3 resolving it, etc. But coming back to exact science, I don't think it will be more than ..., say .. , eh .. 15 ELO ? ( with an uncertainty of +-50%) Tony > >cheers > martin
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.