Author: José Carlos
Date: 01:25:40 01/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2004 at 06:26:47, Tord Romstad wrote:
>On January 14, 2004 at 20:11:53, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On January 14, 2004 at 16:49:29, Tord Romstad wrote:
>>
>>>Another simple trick is to reduce the resolution of your evaluation
>>>function. In my pre-MTD(f) days, I used pawn=128. I still use pawn=128
>>>as the internal unit in my evaluation function, but before returning
>>>the final score I divide the score by 2. This simple change made my
>>>search noticably more efficient.
>>
>>Did you try other divisors besides 2?
>
>No, not yet. When I have cleaned up my source code a bit, I plan to make
>it possible to choose the divisor in my init file. I don't think bigger
>divisors would result in stronger play, though. It would make the engine
>faster, but I am afraid a lower resolution would hurt the already poor
>positional knowledge of Gothmog.
>
>Tord
After some thought about this I came to the conclusion that the accuracy of
the centipawn is less important when the eval is very big (positive or
negative), so now I do something like:
if (abs(eval) >= 30)
{
if (abs(eval) >= 150)
eval -= (eval % 5);
else
eval -= (eval % 3);
}
I don't have my source here, but that's the idea. I even thought of using an
array to slowly increase the divisor, but I don't think it's worth it to include
a memory reference here. The 1 / 3 / 5 scheme works fine for Averno now.
José C.
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.