Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:59:15 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 17:45:15, Uri Blass 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 > >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. I am curious to know how your qsearch knows which captures to attempt and which to ignore.
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.