Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 08:11:01 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 10:46:16, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 10:38:12, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On October 11, 2002 at 08:09:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>you skip one important point. Because of a simplistic evaluation >>>it was able to get 12.2 ply. If you use a more complex evaluation >>>then you do fullwidth not get 12.2 ply at all, but more like 10.5 ply. >> >>It did evaluation in hardware. The complexity of the function has NOTHING to do >>with the speed of computing it. This is obviously something you don't >>understand, or you wouldn't be writing crap like the above, or the below. > >You missed Vincents point. His point was that a more complicated >evaluation (with bigger positional scores) will slow down the search >compared to (for example) a piece-square evaluation, because it causes >more instability. Having a more complicated evaluation does not require having bigger positional scores, but I agree that in the general case that is what happens. However, search instability depends on the correctness of your evaluation function and your move ordering - the variability of the evaluation function is secondary. If your evaluation is very complex, but also extremely accurate, it will be far more stable than a simpler but less accurate evaluation will yield.
This page took 0.01 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.