Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Features: Return vs. Effort

Author: Martin Giepmans

Date: 10:15:33 07/06/04

Go up one level in this thread


On July 06, 2004 at 12:38:14, Andrew Dados wrote:

>On July 06, 2004 at 12:13:31, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>
>>I'm thinking a list of features for chess
>>programs to gauge effort vs. return to save
>>implementation time would be useful, so that
>>programmers won't get lost in a maze
>>"full of twisty little passages" ...
>>
>>In the table below, low numbers in effort and return
>>columns below correspond to lesser effort and greater
>>return. The lower their product, the better
>>
>>If anyone wants to add to or revise this, please
>>respond. This would serve as a guide to
>>practical implementation since time is limited.
>>
>>I am also looking for additional features with
>>your effort/return estimate.
>>
>>Thanks --Stuart
>>
>> FERV (Feature, Effort, Return, Value)
>>
>>EFFORT   RETURN    VALUE     Feature
>>1          1         1       capture ordering
>>3          1         3       null move
>>2          2         4       null move with verification
>>4          2         6       search pv first
>>5          1         5       static exchange evaluator
>>4          1         4       transposition table
>>3          2         6       transposition table with 2-tier replacement
>>3          2         6       history heuristic, killers, other ordering
>>2          3         6       aspiration
>>2          2         4       iterative deepening
>>2          2         4       pawn hashing w/ complex pawn evaluation
>>2          3         9       capture extension
>>1          1         1       check extension
>>1          5         5       pawn to 6th/7th extension
>>3          3         9       futility
>>3          3         9       razoring
>>5          3        15       mate-at-a-glance
>>
>>P.S. Return would imply things like reduced nodes, faster,
>>stronger, etc. -- the usual. Practical results in real games...
>
>
>capture extensions and razoring are at best dubious (eg crafty got rid of them).
>Why such high values there?
>
>-Andrew-

What I understand from Stuart is that better features have _lower_ values, not
higher.
This is a bit couter-intuitive, perhaps a word like 'priority' would be better
than 'value'. For instance, mate-at-a glance has the lowest priority (15).

Martin




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.