Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 18:54:52 09/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 1999 at 19:28:05, leonid wrote: >On September 27, 1999 at 04:23:24, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>Hello Ed, >> >>>From one thing came another, I had a critical look at move ordering again, >>>made some changes, did intensive testing and there it was: 10-15% faster in >>>the end-game and 25-30% faster in the middle-game. >> >>Congratulations. I too notice that small changes can have large consequences. >>However in some positions system a is better and in some system b is better. >>What exactly did you change? Just avoiding playing HOOGSTENS moves? >> >>>After 18 years wrestling, fiddling and twiddling with move-ordering this is >>>remarkable as I expected move-ordering was close to perfect in Rebel. I wonder >>>how much improvement there is still left in move-ordering. >> >>I too. Maybe for positions near the root use ETC and sort accordingly? So play >>each move, look if the resulting position is in the hashtable. If no cutoff is >>possible, you could improve sorting failsoftvalues. This is something I am >>planning. >> > > > >What in the passage over signify "ETC" ? >It is interesting for me since my move-ordering is very bad. >Leonid. Enhanced Transposition Cutoffs. You can find a paper at http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan, click on Publications, click on Artificial Intelligence, and scan backwards from 1999 (it's not too old.) Dave
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.