Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Junior-Crafty hardware user experiment - 19th and final game

Author: Anthony Cozzie

Date: 06:49:27 12/23/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 23, 2003 at 08:50:51, Amir Ban wrote:

>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


It seems like you and Christophe have some tricks up your sleeve.  He's been
making comments like this for some time about his new 'Fugu' thing.  It looks
like I'm going to have to do some serious thinking :)

anthony



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.