Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 07:33:14 09/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2004 at 17:59:58, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 I think I see. The only actual new scores (iteration 2 and up) are when a move brings back a value greater than alpha. Thanks. Dan H.
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.