Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:02:07 06/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 1998 at 06:20:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > > >>>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 Doesn't depend as much on the "window" as it does on the "eval". Nothing says an eval has to produce scores of +/- 24. If you are down a rook, you can quickly decide whether you can offset that with positional scoring or not. Just takes clever programming...
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.