Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:45:15 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
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 I use incremental evaluation. The only cases when I can be wrong in being lazy is in my qsearch because I do not make every stupid capture in my qsearch. Example: Suppose I search the position after 1.e4 e6 2.Bb5 a6 as the root position and have a score of 0.0 pawns at depth 2. If I search 3.c4 axb5 and goto qsearch then I do not make the move 4.cxb5 inspite of the fact that with possible high positional scores I cannot be sure that the positional score after 4.cxb5 is not high enough to justify that move. Uri
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.