Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Alternatives to Using Position Eval FUNCTIONS?

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 09:01:24 11/27/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 27, 2002 at 09:49:55, Bob Durrett wrote:

>
>Disclaimer:  I do not know the specifics of how position evaluation is
>accomplished in the top chess engines.
>
>
>From what I have read here, position evaluation is typically accomplished with a
>"function."  This function appears to be fairly simple.  Otherwise it would be
>called a position evaluation "subprogram."  Since a large number of positions
>are evaluated, the evaluation must be very quick and hence simple.
>
>Less processor time is available for searching if the amount of processor time
>used for position evaluation is increased.  In an extreme example, one might
>devote 90% of the processor time to position evaluation.  I do not know what
>this percentage is in practice. If a huge number of positions are evaluated,
>then the total amount of processor time devoted to evaluation might be large.
>
>It seems that there is a tradeoff between complexity of position evaluation and
>the number of positions evaluated. My impression is that current engines devote
>only a very small percentage of the processor time to evaluation of any given
>position.
>
>Devoting a large amount of processor time to position evaluation of each
>individual position would make sense, or so it seems, only if the evaluation
>were very very good.  Essentially, this would mean evaluating only a relatively
>few positions but evaluating them extremely well, using a complex position
>evaluation subprogram.
>
>In theory, a perfect evaluation subprogram would have to evaluate only one
>position for each move made.  Maybe someone would say that chess engines do just
>that.  They "evaluate" the position after the move was made.  They just do it
>using search algorithms.
>
>
>So, this leads to the following question:
>
>Has anybody yet explored the option of using complex evaluation subprograms
>[which do not rely primarily on the use of search algorithms] for position
>evaluation?
>
>Bob D.


You definition of "simple" is very vague.  For example, is Crafty "simple" or
"complex"??

Whichever you choose, Crafty spends over 50% of the total time used for
selecting a move
in executing the evaluation code.  I have a hard time calling 50% of the total
time "simple"
myself, since this is about 4,000 lines of code, roughly...




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.