Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:12:26 10/20/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 1997 at 13:58:37, Chris Whittington wrote: > >On October 20, 1997 at 13:28:03, Willie Wood wrote: > >> >>On October 20, 1997 at 08:52:02, Chris Whittington wrote: >> >>> >>>Of course this is all gobbledegook for the fast/crafty/fritz paradigm >>>since they (a) don't exchange evaluate and (b) have anything remotely >>>like a pruning function operating over the higher plies. Gobbeldegook >>>for the 'programmer-programmers', perfect sense for the 'chess >>>player-programmers' :) >>> >>>Chris Whittington >>> >>> >> >> >>Bob has said he uses a SEE. In what sense do you mean that crafty >>doesn't exchange evaluate? > >I don't believe he uses the swap-off function, otherwise known as SOMA >or exchange evaluation. This means evaluating WITHOUT the quiesence >search which carries out the capturing possibilities and evaluates >material at the end of the capture sequence. > >A swap-off, SOMA or exchange evaluator evaluates the capture sequence as >part of the evaluation function; and is thus prepared to terminate the >search without then doing a quiecence search. > >A quiecence search is what you do when you have a fast evaluator. They >all do it. > >Swap off evaluations are generally done (f at all) by the slower >knowledge based programs. > >Some programs mix and match between the two. They do swap-off >evaluations and terminate sometimes, or capture search sometimes, >depending on circumstances. Again the circumstances require knowledge >measurements that the fast programs can't/don't do. > >Ed has reported his capture search is around 10-15% of total nodes. >CSTal's is also around this figure, maybe lower. > >I don't know the precise capture search rates for the fast programs, but >I think their rates are very much higher than these. > > >Chris Whittington > > > >> >>WW I think I am around 30%. The big issue between Ed and me when we had this discussion is that we were measuring different things. I measured *any* node with depth>0 as a non-capture node, and any node with depth <= 0 as a capture node. Ed separates the "leaf" nodes out and in that discussion counted them as non-capture nodes. When I do that, generally 30% of the total nodes are at depth < 0... which isn't far off from the above...
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.