Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:09:21 10/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2004 at 17:22:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 06, 2004 at 15:41:18, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On October 06, 2004 at 15:25:16, Peter Skinner wrote: >> >>>I think the main reason for that is flawed testing, testing on 1 pc with ponder >>>on.... >>> >>>Most people do not use the correct books, proper rc file settings, and well just >>>about anything else that can go wrong. >> >>Quite irrelevant, as there is little reason to assume that they changed their >>testing habits recently in a way that would hurt 19.17's performance. Also the >>book discussion has gone a little out of hand recently, if you ask me. >> >>> * 19.16 fix to "Trojan code" to eliminate the time limit exclusion since * >>> * many users still have old and slow hardware, and the time limit * >>> * was not set correctly when PreEvaluate() was called anyway. the * >>> * code to display fail-high/fail-low information was cleaned up so * >>> * that the +1 or +3 now makes sense from the black side where the * >>> * score is really going down (good for black) rather than showing * >>> * a +3 fail high (when Crafty is black) and the score is really * >>> * going to drop (get better for black). Now the fail-high-fail-low * >>> * +/- sign is also relative to +=good for white like the scores * >>> * have been for years. adjustments to pawn evaluation terms to * >>> * improve the scoring balance. "new" now terminates parallel * >>> * threads (they will be re-started when needed) so that we don't * >>> * burn CPU time when not actually playing a game. * >>> * * >>> * 19.17 changes to pawn evaluation to limit positional scores that could * >>> * get a bit out of sane boundaries in some positions. * >>> * * >>> ******************************************************************************* >>> >>>Really there is the removal of useless code, and fixs to scoring. That is about >>>it. Nothing significant between the two. >>> >> >>Reads different to me. At least the changes for 19.17 could well be relevant, >>judging only from the text above. Also sometimes there are changes with >>unexpected effects. > >That change likely had no affect on most games. It only changed things in >_very_ awkward positions such as where one side has 6-7 isolated pawns and the >like, which is not going to happen often... I read also in 19.16 adjustments to pawn evaluation terms improve the scoring balance. Is this another change that has no affect on most games? Uri
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.