Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 08:41:50 09/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2000 at 05:00:59, Bas Hamstra wrote:
>On September 27, 2000 at 16:16:21, Peter McKenzie wrote:
>
>>On September 27, 2000 at 07:47:18, Bas Hamstra wrote:
>>
>>>Supposing no "lazy-errors" at all were made, does anyone know if there are
>>>serious side-effects to lazy eval?
>>
>>You can't get the full benefits of fail-soft using lazy eval.
>
>I agree. This is the only factor I can think off too, you lose some bound info.
>
>Yet, I ran a couple of WAC tests at very short time controls, with and without
>LE. And kept track of the average depth that was reached. In that quick test
>NPS went up, but the average depth stayed the same!
>
>So it seems what you win in speed, you lose in bound info, net result zero? At
>least in this case. I will rerun it more accurately, at longer tc.
You might want to give the following idea a try. I think this could be called a
fail soft version of lazy eval:
es = s + largest_evalscore[side];
if (es < alpha)
return es; /* fail hard: return alpha */
es = s - largest_evalscore[xside];
if (es > beta)
return es; /* fail soft: return beta */
This should store better bounds in the hash tables.
-- Dieter
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.