Author: martin fierz
Date: 07:35:26 04/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2004 at 10:07:35, Tord Romstad wrote: >On April 13, 2004 at 20:39:23, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>Well, the most obvious explanation is that there's simply a speed vs knowledge >>tradeoff. >> >>However, there are some interesting data points regarding evaluation functions. >> >>One is that Fruit is not so bad, considering that it apparently lacks the one >>single most important middle game evaluation factor. (King safety.) > >Or even Crafty. Have you seen Crafty's king safety eval? I almost couldn't >believe my eyes the first time I saw it. Apparently king safety is no longer >very important if your engine is sufficiently fast. i use crafty 19.~6 as a sparring partner for my engine. it is far better than muse of course. but i have seen *many* *horrible* moves by crafty, regarding king safety. i never checked it's evaluation, and i don't intend to. i just want to say that when crafty loses against muse, it is more often than not that crafty's king safety eval seems bad to me. on the other hand, the main reason i decided to use attack tables in muse is for king safety evaluation. they really pay off there, but the price i'm paying is huge - i search even less nps than gothmog ;-) i think writing a good king safety eval requires a lot of computation and then you're just back to complex+slow or cheap+fast. cheers martin >>Another is that Junior spends 10% of its time in eval. > >Yes, but I suspect that this is because it updates lots of complicated >information incrementally when making/unmaking moves. > >Tord
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.