Author: Amir Ban
Date: 06:13:07 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 08:36:29, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On December 23, 2003 at 08:09:34, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 23, 2003 at 06:47:18, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>> >>>Thanks for running this match and for the interesting commentary. >>> >>>My point in playing this match was never to show how weak crafty is, but >>>something different: Too many programmers and posters in this forum take the >>>speed issue way too seriously. They don't understand the importance of >>>evaluation, and when they do think about it, they think it's about pawn >>>structure and a few super-rare endgame tableaus. >>> >>>I also needed to check that I've not been wasting my efforts in the last few >>>years. >>> >>>Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukka, >>>Amir >> >>I do not claim that evaluation is not important but my opinion is that search is >>not thing that is less important. >> >>I also know that inspite of the fact that you say that evaluation is important >>your evaluation takes only 20% of Junior's time(I do not know about latest >>Junior but I know about previous post of you). >> >>How is it possible? >> >>Did not you find important things to evaluate that it is simply impossible to >>evaluate them fast? >> >>For example let talk about pieces that are in danger of being trapped because >>the opponent control every square that they can goto. >> >>There are cases that you need to search many plies forward to see by search that >>they are really trapped but a good evaluation should detect the danger. >> >>Correct me if I am wrong but I guess that you do not evaluate this information >>in every node that you evaluate otherwise you cannot be faster in nps than the >>opponents. >> >>Did you consider to evaluate this information or do you think that this >>information is not important? >> >>I think that evaluating expensive information in part of the cases is probably >>the best practical idea. >> >>Based on my understanding Rebel is using that idea when it evaluates every node >>before qsearch by full evaluation and use lazy evaluation after it when the lazy >>evaluation can miss only factors that were not relevant before the qsearch. >> >>Do you use a similiar idea? >> >>Uri > >Doesn't Junior do a lot of preprocessing? If I understand your search >correctly, Junior searches noncaptures to a much lesser depth than captures, so >maybe you can get away with it. > >anthony Junior was a preprocessor until 1995. By 1997, most preprocessing was gone. Junior 8 has none. Amir
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.