Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:02:42 09/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2000 at 11:41:50, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >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: I heart someone mention this trick before a couple of years ago, but when i measured the largest eval score i had so far during the search the trick looked a bit silly > es = s + largest_evalscore[side]; So that's roughly (can be a bit more or less): es = s + 20 pawns ..do i need to continue? > 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. Way worse bounds. >-- 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.