Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:44:57 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 09:55:59, Fabien Letouzey wrote: >On March 17, 2004 at 09:52:27, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On March 17, 2004 at 04:58:06, Peter Alloysius wrote: >> >>>what are tricks for evaluation tuning so that it could >>>search less nodes? >> >>An easy way to reduce your tree size enormously is to evaluate all >>positions to the value 0. You will get beta cutoffs at the first move >>everywhere in the tree, therefore the tree will be extremely small. Your >>move ordering will always be perfect, and the simple evaluation function >>will certainly boost your nodes/second count. :-) >> >>Seriously, I don't think tuning the evaluation is the right way to go >>in order to reduce the tree size. You should rather concentrate on >>making the evaluation function as accurate as possible, and look for >>improvements in your search and move ordering when trying to reduce the >>size of your tree. >> >>Tord > >No offense Tord, but I don't understand why programmers think the move ordering >is "perfect" if a fail-high move is found first 100% of the time. The size of >subtrees is a very important matter in programs with many extensions/reductions. > >Fabien. I never was interested in the % of first fail high. If I do a change in the search and test it(including change in move ordering) I use test positions and test if it is better or worse in solving them. Uri
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.