Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 18:26:32 09/06/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 06, 2002 at 20:35:26, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On September 06, 2002 at 15:47:50, Robert Hyatt 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.
>>
>>
>>That is called "lazy evaluation".  Most of us do that.  :)
>
>Yes, most programs have a lazy evaluation.  But the exact nature of the
>divisions is what I found interesting.  Each additional stage of eval is a big
>jump in complexity.
>
>I don't think any of the programs I have examined divide the effort into exactly
>those categories.  And most of them have a two stage lazy eval (test and do the
>full thing or don't).  The three stage idea looked interesting.

Crafty does it about 1/2 way into the eval.  I do the stuff that can
produce enormous scores like passed pawns that can't be stopped, and then
I lazy exit before the slow piece evaluations if possible...



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.