Author: leonid
Date: 06:19:01 09/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 1999 at 21:54:52, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 Thanks very much for response! Reading looks very nice and attractive. Go there. Leonid.
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.