Author: Amir Ban
Date: 05:50:51 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 08:09:34, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 23, 2003 at 06:47:18, Amir Ban wrote: > >> >>Thanks for running this match and for the interesting commentary. >> >>My point in playing this match was never to show how weak crafty is, but >>something different: Too many programmers and posters in this forum take the >>speed issue way too seriously. They don't understand the importance of >>evaluation, and when they do think about it, they think it's about pawn >>structure and a few super-rare endgame tableaus. >> >>I also needed to check that I've not been wasting my efforts in the last few >>years. >> >>Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukka, >>Amir > >I do not claim that evaluation is not important but my opinion is that search is >not thing that is less important. > >I also know that inspite of the fact that you say that evaluation is important >your evaluation takes only 20% of Junior's time(I do not know about latest >Junior but I know about previous post of you). > Less than 10% in most positions. >How is it possible? > >Did not you find important things to evaluate that it is simply impossible to >evaluate them fast? > There are many things I can do basically for free in my framework. There are things that break the model, and either are neglected or if considered critical get done outside it. >For example let talk about pieces that are in danger of being trapped because >the opponent control every square that they can goto. > >There are cases that you need to search many plies forward to see by search that >they are really trapped but a good evaluation should detect the danger. > >Correct me if I am wrong but I guess that you do not evaluate this information >in every node that you evaluate otherwise you cannot be faster in nps than the >opponents. > >Did you consider to evaluate this information or do you think that this >information is not important? > I do this for some important special cases. Not in the general case. It's hard for me to guess how productive that would be. >I think that evaluating expensive information in part of the cases is probably >the best practical idea. > >Based on my understanding Rebel is using that idea when it evaluates every node >before qsearch by full evaluation and use lazy evaluation after it when the lazy >evaluation can miss only factors that were not relevant before the qsearch. > >Do you use a similiar idea? > No. You are confusing between the evaluation elements and its result. Both are important, but it's still true that your evaluation of a position can use a lot of smart and correct elements and be totally off, and it is equally true that it can be right though neglecting a lot of important stuff. Amir
This page took 0.02 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.