Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 09:16:49 02/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2000 at 11:37:52, Mark Taylor wrote: >An idea I had was to have a small incrmental value subtracted from the eval, >this small increment getting larger the deeper into the tree search the eval was >returned from. I had already done this for the values WON & LOST, but I This is a good idea. However, most chess programs have transposition tables. The ideas are not compatible, because ttables assume that a position's score is constant. You will probably want to have ttables instead of your penalty, because once in a while there are huge benefits to having a ttable. >What I did in the end I made the first search iteration look at positional eval >& material eval, then subsequent iterations looked at material eval only - but >this was really a cop out. Yeah, I think this just confuses things. A long time ago I think there was a program that ran on two CPUs. One CPU ran the regular evaluation function and one was material-only. They checked each other. But programs these days get along fine without material-only eval. -Tom
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.