Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:16:56 10/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2004 at 19:09:21, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Yes. It was a "zero sum change". IE do you add 16 for this and start at zero, or do you add 16 for this and start at -8. All it really does is change the "origin" for scores, so that base scores don't start at +.5 or whatever, but closer to 0.0...
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.