Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:12:57 10/20/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 1997 at 20:12:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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.