This supports the theory that examining uninteresting nodes improves the "fail high on first move" percentage, which could also explain why stronger programs had lower percentages in this test: http://www.top-5000.nl/moresu.htm
Wow...
I got some more entries, will publish tomorrow. Had little time the last days.
I will make a new one as suggested just for the fun of it and see where we will end up. But I won't call it a contest any longer !
I will venture a guess that such contests will end up being an ego-trip for some after the recent 'counter move' buzz. I bet you expected Don to win because he suggested it to stockish and it got +20 elo. The eventual winner Rookie wins by a huge margin again because it has counter move heuristic. Hence my guess that this was a subtle counter moves ego-trip. So I will cut to the chase and say the idea is at least 10 years older than both as Gerd pointed out in that thread. For the record I got about 6-8 elos out of it, while something I did to improve move ordering through IID gave me 14 elos. Calling it a contest and assigning a winner shadows any scientific merrit it may have. It is a liscense to say 'my eval is best', 'my move ordering is best' etc.. and the automatic justification is 'my engine is not so strong for nothing fool'. Ok enough of this from me, but I would have liked it more if it was more a discussion of move ordering methods and how much you gain from it.
I won't buy in to his 'appeal to humility' because I do not think being bad in move ordering indicates higher elo. It is absurd to try and justify negative correlation between move ordering and higher strength just because a strong engine performed bad. Strength is influenced by way too many factors to make any conclusions. Every one belived Rybka had super evaluation until it is proved not to be so. Therefore we need to make a proper test of each move ordering component for the test to be un-flawed by 'percieved elo of engine', otherwise it is no better than the Rybka PR.
Daniel Shawul wrote:I won't buy in to his 'appeal to humility' because I do not think being bad in move ordering indicates higher elo. It is absurd to try and justify negative correlation between move ordering and higher strength just because a strong engine performed bad. Strength is influenced by way too many factors to make any conclusions. Every one belived Rybka had super evaluation until it is proved not to be so. Therefore we need to make a proper test of each move ordering component for the test to be un-flawed by 'percieved elo of engine', otherwise it is no better than the Rybka PR.
