Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 05:17:42 05/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2005 at 07:47:53, Richard Pijl wrote: > >>Most of the time they do the same job as 80% of the time >>the best move that causes a cut of is the first. >>It seems logical for me to wait until you found a PV move before >>applying null windows rather than starting it after first move is searched. >>daniel > >I don't see this logic, but, at the same time, must confess that I haven't >tested the differences thoroughly yet. > >Normally a scout is used to be able to quickly discard moves. >There is little use in doing that for the first move you try, as it is likely to >yield a result within the a-b window. After the first move gave a nice value, >scouts are used to test if there is a better move available. In most cases there >probably isn't. >In cases that the first move didn't give a nice pv value and failed low, we >basically have the same situation. Chances are that the second and third move >will fail low as well. So why not quickly find out with a scout whether there is >a move that gives a value within the a-b window instead of searching all moves >with an a-b window? >Richard. >Richard. I think it depends on how good your move ordering. For a good move ordering you can assume the rest of the moves are not better than the first, even if it fails low. I assume that i probably got the move ordering wrong if my first move fails low. As you said it needs testing as the cutoff rate vs Search overhead differs in different engines. daniel
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.