Author: William H Rogers
Date: 14:49:06 01/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 1999 at 17:49:15, KarinsDad wrote: >I have been considering the possibility of having two sets of evaluation >routines in my code. One set is a quick simplistic evalution and the other is a >slower, more detailed evaluation. > >The simplistic evaluation consists of any set of data which can quickly be >calculated such as material and safe squares. I was also going to have my pawn >structure score here as well since I am using one large hash table for it, >hence, since pawn structures are relatively stable and once calculated, they can >be re-used for multiple positions across the search tree. > >The detailed evaluation was going to consist of the simplistic evaluation, plus >modified piece values (based on where they are and what they are doing), square >control, king safety, etc. > >My questions are: > >1) Has anyone used an approach similar to this, and if so, is it successful? and >2) If I use this approach, where should I use each evaluation? I was thinking of >using the detailed evaluation only on the first few ply (maybe up to 4), on the >entire PV, and at the leaf nodes of non-quiescent paths (once they became >relatively quiescent again). I would then use the simplistic evaluation >everywhere else for speed. Does this seem reasonable, or am I missing something >here? Will having scores derived from two different evaluations result in a >skewing of the search? > >Thanks, > >KarinsDad Consider the following, but I am not sure it would suite your needs 1. first part of eval 2. if ply < 2 then next ply 3. the rest, or the best eval 4. next ply. One routine with a banch in it. Of course you could set your own branching factor. I tried someting like this at the final ply to try to look beyound the horizon. Bill
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.