Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 18:13:15 12/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2005 at 15:31:55, Roman Hartmann wrote: >On December 28, 2005 at 15:27:34, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On December 28, 2005 at 15:22:56, Roman Hartmann wrote: >> >>>I just added mobility to my eval and while it kills my kN/s (brought them from >>>1000kN/s down to around 100kN/s) it doesn't seem to hurt the play. But I guess I >>>have to let it play some games first before I make a conclusion. If it's >>>improving the positional play without causing too much tactical dammage I will >>>add a stripped down movegenerator for mobility as I have now quite some overhead >>>having a legal-move-generator with incremental eval (means the eval is in the >>>movegenerator). >> >>How are you calculating mobility? >>A 10:1 loss in speed is very traumatic. >>Unless you are only counting wood in your evaluation, you should not see that >>traumatic of a degradation. > >Several problems: >-outdated board design 10x12 >-legal move generator instead of pseudo legal >-material/square-only eval (so you're right, I was only counting wood so far) > >Roman The only difference between my research program which is used for testing auto-learning from your description above is that I use pseudo-legal and determine legality in the tree. Make yours pseudo-legal and forget a truly legal move generator. Detect it in the tree and see if you get something faster? Stuart
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.