Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:16:28 04/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2001 at 06:58:26, Tony Werten wrote: >On April 09, 2001 at 22:25:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 09, 2001 at 21:17:59, Normand M. Blais wrote: >> >>>On April 09, 2001 at 18:20:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 09, 2001 at 16:49:21, Normand M. Blais wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 09, 2001 at 16:21:56, Andrei Fortuna wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>positional score > 2 PAWN_VALUE. And that will hurt my quiescence and my >>>>>>futility pruning if I assume that 2*PAWN_VALUE is max positional score. It all >>>>>>boils down to the magnitude of the positional scores versus pawn value, I think >>>>>>I have to choose either to keep big bonuses and turn futility off (or set a >>>>>>bigger margin for futility but in that case it would make futility more >>>>>>inefficient) or keep small bonuses and enjoy the reductions I get from futility >>>>>>and quiescence. >>>>> >>>>>What if you multiply the value of the material by 10 (i.e. pawn = 1000 Knight = >>>>>3000 Bishop = 3000 Rook = 5000 Queen = 10000 ) and keep the positional score as >>>>>it is. >>>>> >>>>>N.M.B. >>>> >>>> >>>>Then you become _very_ materialistic. You will grab pawns whenever >>>>possible, even if it wrecks your king position. You will grab a pawn but >>>>leave your opponent with an outside passer that wins. Etc... >>> >>>I understand that the positional score is related to the material score (the >>>pawn or tempi being the unit of measurement). I made a mistake by suggesting >>>that the material value can be magnified without adjusting both the positional >>>bonuses and penalties. But would it be a good idea to have one more digit to >>>work with? A value of 1000, for instance, could represent 100.0. And scores >>>like 112.4 and 112.8 could be set apart? Not a sophisticated idea but anyhow. >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>N.M.B. >> >>I don't personally think the idea of "millipawns" makes a lot of sense. That >>is _very_ fine resolution. I used it in Cray Blitz, and in early versions of >>Crafty, but it adds to the hash entry size for one thing... > >XiniX is using it. Not because it makes any sence but I like the idea that I can >give small bonusses for some stupid positional thing that I like, without >messing up the eval and still having the idea that if two positions score almost >the same, it will prefer the one I like. > >Gives me a sort of personal tough feeling. ( As I said, it's not because it >makes any sence ) > >cheers, > >Tony Too fine resolution makes more difficult beta cutoffs, IMO, so, even not having tried it myself, I'd say your tree must be bigger that way than it would be with smaller resolution. I even recall that, some time ago, I think it was John Dart that made a test reducing the resolution of his eval to 1/4 pawn, but I actually can't remember how did it work. José C.
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.