Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Speaking of the Thesis by Marcel van Kervinck (hopefully no storms)...

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 13:06:43 09/06/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 06, 2002 at 16:03:06, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On September 06, 2002 at 15:46:53, Tony Werten wrote:
>
>>On September 06, 2002 at 14:45:11, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>Did anyone notice his cutoff idea in the evaluation function?
>>>
>>>It seems to me to be a very good idea, and I don't know if others have tried it
>>>out.
>>>
>>>Basically, it consists of three modes with two early exits...
>>>
>>>1. If the material + structure score alone is dominant enough, it exits right
>>>away.
>>>2. Otherwise, it processes the piece list.  If that score is dominant, it exits.
>>>3. Otherwise, it does a full board control scan for all 64 squares.
>>>
>>>It is described starting on page 62 under the section "3.3.2 Multi Staged
>>>Design"
>>>He gets roughly 71% evals returning in stage #1, 13% in stage #2 and 7% in stage
>>>#3.
>>>
>>>It seems like it might be a big win to do it that way.
>>
>>It's called lazy eval and is not a good idea. The times it is wrong happen to be
>>the important ones.
>>
>>Tony
>
>
>Two things...
>
>First, you _can_ do a lazy eval with zero error.  I did it in Cray Blitz and
>I explained the idea here before...
>
>You can compute the possible "positional error" (the amount the score will
>change max and min) for each type of piece.  When you do a lazy eval, you
>can use this min/max and sum 'em up (or do it incrementally as we did, which
>can be a headache) so that you know the "independent piece max/min scores".
>
>If you lazy eval based on that, you get _zero_ errors because you will _really_
>know that the individual piece scores can't produce a number larger than X or
>smaller than Y, so you can make an informed decision.
>
>I don't do that today because each time you change the eval, you have to
>update those min/max values which is something I would continually forget.

Yes, correct. But when you get 71% hitrate your bounds are not very wide.

>
>2.  You can get good results with remembering the min/max positional scores
>during a real game.  yes, the scores will continue to "widen" and reduce lazy
>eval exits, but the error rate is not that bad.  Compared to the cost.

In XiniX the hitrate drops to <5% quite fast this way. IMO not really worth it.

Tony




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.