Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 10:33:27 07/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2004 at 13:15:33, Martin Giepmans wrote: >>>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 >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 I think the 'value' column is meaningless as it currently exists. For instance, if some feature has an effort of 3 and a return of 1, that's not a good value. You spend a lot and get only a little. If you spend 1 and get 3, that is a good value. You spend a little and get a lot. Currently, they both get a 'value' of 3, so they are equal. That's not right. Maybe a ratio would be better? Return/Effort would be better, I think. In the situation just described, it would be 1/3 = 0.3333 vs. 3/1 = 3.0000. That gives a much clearer picture about what will give you a better value for your time invested.
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.