Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 14:59:58 09/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2004 at 10:43:12, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >On September 28, 2004 at 18:44:13, Ed Schröder wrote: > >> >>Interesting idea. Are you sure it's the best way of doing things? Any speed >>increase percentage to offer? >> >>My way of doing: after iteration one I do a full sort, after iteration 2 and up >>I increment the root scores with a decreasing value first (move-1 + 256, move-2 >>+ 248, move-3 +240 etc.) before I sort. This is meant to keep the order of >>iteration one as good as possible and in the case certain moves had serious >>score increases these moves automatically will make it to the top. >> >>As last item I make sure that previous best-moves are stored as second, third, >>fourth in the list and finally that fail-high-errors (fail-high's that after a >>research did not produce a best move) are stored as second. >> >>I never found a better system. I will try to mix your idea with system and see >>what happens. >> >>My best, >> >>Ed >Hi Ed: >How do get scores for the other root moves? In my case, for a typical iteration >(no fail hi or lo), the first move sets alpha. All the rest of the moves come >back with that same value. Exactly. That's why I said to modify the scores before you sort after iteration one, see above. So at iteration one you just sort, every next iteration add a decreasing value first and then sort. It will keep the moves in place. My best, Ed
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.