Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:33:58 02/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2000 at 12:16:49, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>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
The very old program Tech (I think the author was Gillogly, correct my spelling
please, it was back in 1960) did this, but on only one processor I think.
It played rather well, but was seriously handicaped by lack of deep positional
understanding.
Christophe
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.