Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:20:06 06/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>I see that normal evaluation of DB is 8 clocks now and >>only done 20% (!) of the cases. >> >>So they're kind of lazy evaluating. Didn't know it could be done in 80% of >>the times, meaning that their window to lazy evaluate is quite small, meaning >>that the *reach* of the evaluation is not big. >> > >doesn't mean that at all. You seem to be able to measure the mass of a >rock, and compute the total number of atoms in the universe, without having >a clue about anything else. So you don't have arguments against. I already posted that. This is the x-th clear evidence how stupid their eval is. Lot of patterns in eval ==> huge deviation ==> huge window needed to lazy cutoff (if you use lazy cutoffs). Clear. simple. no discussion about. Vincent >>The more knowledge is in your evaluation, the bigger the terms can differ, >>the wider the window that comes out of evaluation, the less you can >>lazy evaluate. My window out of evaluation is usually around [-12 pawns;12pawns] >>that's positional score, where usual the black score >>compensates for say 11 pawns the 11 pawns of white (getting an evaluation >>of 0 then), but sometimes this isn't the case, causing huge window >>differences. >> >>Hyatt your turn. Better cut and never paste this, he he. this is the x-th >>hint to that evaluation is not having that a depth. > > >nope... it only shows ignorance of hardware. And here's a hint: the >ignorance is *not* on my part. >I see *nothing* that says an evaluation has to produce evaluations that >are +/- 12. But you need to read about Belle and the fast/slow evaluations >before you write more.. then you'll understand what this is all about. It seem that you have *no idea* about what a huge evaluation means. It means for example you can't do a lazy evaluation like that. I have chess computer compendium. And i did read about Belle in that book. More interesting than that is the research of Paradise. When i got (thanks!) that paper about Paradise i found the nullmove idea was already implemented in Paradise in 1979. I got amazed by the number of rules that were implemented. Too bad that those were needed to search instead of evaluating. >>Can some known lazy evaluators say what % of nodes they can do >>lazy, and what window is needed to get 80%? What window do you need to get 80%, and what window have you set? Vincent
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.